Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Very important to remember, and I'm sure Canon and Nikon are all ears by now.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Leica SL (601) ..Oct 20th?
- Thread starter glenerrolrd
- Start date
Hi,
I'm very interested in the industry and as a long time practical user of the M system, I'm very much gunning for Leica. However, at an intellectual level I find the industry interesting and its in this context that my comments are directed. You are right that 36-50MP is not massive in terms of printing, but the problem is that such thinking does not necessarily drive the camera market, despite impacting your own rationale. Just look at A7 to A7R sales (how many people really needed the 36MP), or the success of the D800E that provided a hair better fine detail at non diffraction limited apertures. The same goes for the Canon 5DS and 5DSR, where the latter is massively outselling the former. Just to reiterate, my comments are 'industry observations' - opinions about how these cameras/specs/releases may be received by the wider public and the impact this may have on sales and therefore Leica's fortunes. Its not about what I could or could not do with a camera. That has almost become a point unworthy of conversation, because the vast majority of cameras are so very good. It really does come down to nuances and marketing.
On the subject of 'what a camera can do', whenever a new camera is released the backdrop is what other cameras can (or cannot) already do. Manufacturers of course need to differentiate their products from others, as this is the basis of making decisions. Mat has amply explained why he chose the S platform for his work and it makes perfect sense. Jono and several others have explained why they find the SL very appealing (and the 'universal platform' aspect seems to be one of the most appealing). My concerns are not that these cameras cannot and do not make specific people very happy, or that they are not very good cameras, only that I am concerned Leica has not managed to make them appealing enough for enough people to provide Leica with outright success with their lines. This is also the context of my comments on S007 resolution. I think a lot of people did want and expect more resolution, not because they necessarily need it, or because 40 to 50MP makes a huge difference, but because it marks forward momentum. These things are evolutionary and many owners like to feel they are somewhere towards the leading edge. We may not individually subscribe to this thinking, but it seems the market often does.
As for the 'worlds best camera designers', I am not sure whether you are speaking of Leica specifically or just the big names generally. However, lets not forget that the Leica T proved to be a fairly substantial failure (and most Leica users could have predicted that quite easily). Sales were poor and the lens line up is still very limited. This must surely have knocked Leica back a bit and that is a real shame. Nearly ten years ago I was creeping through subterranean passageways photographing heroin addicts in Afghanistan. I always had one or two M bodies with me and there was no other camera on Earth I wanted to have with me at the time. With the SL, I had hoped for a camera that might fuse some of the best attributes of the M with new mirrorless technologies and create something really special, but as Jono says, the SL really is much closer to a mirrorless R than an interchangeable Q. The S007 is a great camera as is, but had it been given even 45MP I have no doubt that nagging doubts would have been erased from some potential buyers' minds, however silly that may seem.
I'm very interested in the industry and as a long time practical user of the M system, I'm very much gunning for Leica. However, at an intellectual level I find the industry interesting and its in this context that my comments are directed. You are right that 36-50MP is not massive in terms of printing, but the problem is that such thinking does not necessarily drive the camera market, despite impacting your own rationale. Just look at A7 to A7R sales (how many people really needed the 36MP), or the success of the D800E that provided a hair better fine detail at non diffraction limited apertures. The same goes for the Canon 5DS and 5DSR, where the latter is massively outselling the former. Just to reiterate, my comments are 'industry observations' - opinions about how these cameras/specs/releases may be received by the wider public and the impact this may have on sales and therefore Leica's fortunes. Its not about what I could or could not do with a camera. That has almost become a point unworthy of conversation, because the vast majority of cameras are so very good. It really does come down to nuances and marketing.
On the subject of 'what a camera can do', whenever a new camera is released the backdrop is what other cameras can (or cannot) already do. Manufacturers of course need to differentiate their products from others, as this is the basis of making decisions. Mat has amply explained why he chose the S platform for his work and it makes perfect sense. Jono and several others have explained why they find the SL very appealing (and the 'universal platform' aspect seems to be one of the most appealing). My concerns are not that these cameras cannot and do not make specific people very happy, or that they are not very good cameras, only that I am concerned Leica has not managed to make them appealing enough for enough people to provide Leica with outright success with their lines. This is also the context of my comments on S007 resolution. I think a lot of people did want and expect more resolution, not because they necessarily need it, or because 40 to 50MP makes a huge difference, but because it marks forward momentum. These things are evolutionary and many owners like to feel they are somewhere towards the leading edge. We may not individually subscribe to this thinking, but it seems the market often does.
As for the 'worlds best camera designers', I am not sure whether you are speaking of Leica specifically or just the big names generally. However, lets not forget that the Leica T proved to be a fairly substantial failure (and most Leica users could have predicted that quite easily). Sales were poor and the lens line up is still very limited. This must surely have knocked Leica back a bit and that is a real shame. Nearly ten years ago I was creeping through subterranean passageways photographing heroin addicts in Afghanistan. I always had one or two M bodies with me and there was no other camera on Earth I wanted to have with me at the time. With the SL, I had hoped for a camera that might fuse some of the best attributes of the M with new mirrorless technologies and create something really special, but as Jono says, the SL really is much closer to a mirrorless R than an interchangeable Q. The S007 is a great camera as is, but had it been given even 45MP I have no doubt that nagging doubts would have been erased from some potential buyers' minds, however silly that may seem.
As I said earlier, it occurred to me that this is more a DSLR replacement as much as it is a challenger to the Sony A7 series. The only real commonality is they are both mirror-less, and both are placing pressure on Canikon in one way or another depending on the photographer's needs.
Having a 4+K EVF is a major advancement for mirror-less. It lowers the barrier for switching from OVF to EVF. Hardly "behind the curve" tech. Now everything else out there is behind the curve in this key area for awhile.
The SL appears to be fast in a lot of areas where others are slower (some functionally, others operationally) ... which is another perceptual barrier between mirror-less and DSLRs.
Like the S camera, the SL shoots to two cards like many Pro spec DSLRs ... which was one reason I had trouble psychologically making the A7R my work-horse kit for paid work, especially weddings (the "door slam" shutter and lag were also issues).
The A7R may have been a "beta" to the A7R-II, but I was stuck with an overly complex, lens challenged, crippled $3K camera for a lot of jobs ... and rarely used the A7R for pleasure ... because it wasn't.
Given that the pixel wars are still being fought, I understand the issue with the SL's FF 24 meg. Leica may have done better by at least psychologically breaching the 30 meg barrier whether it made any real difference or not. But it is what it is.
That said, I must say that I am VERY impressed with the image qualities of the initial photos from reviewers so far. I can't recall feeling that way about any beta stuff for some time. Oliver Richter's decisive sports images with the 90-280 @ ISO 6400 are eye opening IMO, and seem to support the over-all responsiveness, AF speed and lack of lag attributes.
The only reason I was looking at the S(007), was to increase my S system's range of usefulness. However, those areas of use rarely require MFD file size ... and while improved, the slower responsiveness is still an issue compared to other alternatives better suited for that type of work. In that respect, this SL is a less expensive alternative for me ... something one rarely can say about anything from Leica:ROTFL:
Unfortunately, the wifey got wind of this possible expenditure, and my new SL and 24-90 zoom camera may magically turn into a new bathroom makeover
Knitting the ski mask today
- Marc
Having a 4+K EVF is a major advancement for mirror-less. It lowers the barrier for switching from OVF to EVF. Hardly "behind the curve" tech. Now everything else out there is behind the curve in this key area for awhile.
The SL appears to be fast in a lot of areas where others are slower (some functionally, others operationally) ... which is another perceptual barrier between mirror-less and DSLRs.
Like the S camera, the SL shoots to two cards like many Pro spec DSLRs ... which was one reason I had trouble psychologically making the A7R my work-horse kit for paid work, especially weddings (the "door slam" shutter and lag were also issues).
The A7R may have been a "beta" to the A7R-II, but I was stuck with an overly complex, lens challenged, crippled $3K camera for a lot of jobs ... and rarely used the A7R for pleasure ... because it wasn't.
Given that the pixel wars are still being fought, I understand the issue with the SL's FF 24 meg. Leica may have done better by at least psychologically breaching the 30 meg barrier whether it made any real difference or not. But it is what it is.
That said, I must say that I am VERY impressed with the image qualities of the initial photos from reviewers so far. I can't recall feeling that way about any beta stuff for some time. Oliver Richter's decisive sports images with the 90-280 @ ISO 6400 are eye opening IMO, and seem to support the over-all responsiveness, AF speed and lack of lag attributes.
The only reason I was looking at the S(007), was to increase my S system's range of usefulness. However, those areas of use rarely require MFD file size ... and while improved, the slower responsiveness is still an issue compared to other alternatives better suited for that type of work. In that respect, this SL is a less expensive alternative for me ... something one rarely can say about anything from Leica:ROTFL:
Unfortunately, the wifey got wind of this possible expenditure, and my new SL and 24-90 zoom camera may magically turn into a new bathroom makeover
Knitting the ski mask today
- Marc
M
mjr
Guest
Despite some quite humorous posts, this is an interesting discussion, I have much less interest in the industry as a whole Tom, I'm focussed massively at the time I need to buy something and then I don't care so much. Digital is moving fast so I buy what I want and then forget about it until I need to buy something else, and at that point that piece of equipment needs to work for me solely and I have very little interest in how it is perceived or accepted by the wider photographic community, it doesn't matter to me personally.
The reason I continue to reply to the likes of Algrove has nothing to do with his choice of camera, good luck to him, it's more about the continued assertion that one camera is better than another, either because it is cheaper or has more mp or whatever the stated "fact" mainly because I don't believe for one second that there is a better camera, there is just a more suitable camera. The Z is brilliant, just not for me.
I like to look at scenarios, I travel a lot and often, like Tom, to places that are less than ideal. My last trip to Afghanistan was a couple of years ago now but it was fairly tense, the best camera for that time was an RX1, small, good quality but most importantly, I could take shots without drawing attention to myself, no way on earth I would have used a Z or S at that time, larger files are irrelevant from the morgue! So the RX1 is the best camera? Of course not, just at that time.
In Iraq it was much calmer and I travelled all the time in armoured vehicles, I took the D800 and a reasonable selection of lenses, small enough to be useful but not large enough to draw unnecessary attention, if I had the S then I'd have used it too, same physical size and wouldn't have been out of place, I would have taken the Z at a push but would have been more conscious and probably wouldn't have used it as much.
If I had clients needing product shots I'd have a tech cam and back or possibly at a push for small runs the S with the 120 T/S but that would be limiting and only as an addition to what I have, definitely not the Z.
For the studio and for outdoor portraits I'd use the S 006 with a 120cs or 180cs with strobes, having tried lots of cameras it's the best combination of usability, size and image quality is just beautiful. I'm sure there are options for high sync with the Z but weren't at the time I was buying.
I have 3 clients now who want me to shoot corporate portraits and include video, 1 client is very specific on 4k but others not, for non technical video, the 007 is amazing in 4k, it's a case of putting it on a tripod and going for it, no extra lenses no extra system, it's restricted for sure but within its restrictions, perfect. I can't do 4k with the Z.
If I was on a budget then the Z would be a serious consideration, if I wanted big statement prints then I'd rent an tech cam and a db and wouldn't use either S or Z, especially if I was going somewhere to do it with the specific aim of making those pieces.
If I'm wandering about at home as I do most days and wanted MF quality then I'd use Z or S and depending on budget, contax lenses or S lenses.
And so to the SL, I hope it's a success but it's definitely not a mass produced product going to appeal to lots of people, some will love it, some will hate it, hopefully enough will love it to make it a success. It could work for me as a backup/video/faster action cam but I already have a lot of that covered and have never shot faster stuff. Video does look like a key area because more and more clients ask for it, as Marc says, at this point is a "cheaper" option than a second 007, cheaper is obviously relative! What I'd really like to see on the SL is T/S lenses, for me then it would have another benefit but very unlikely that will happen, would be great though! I personally dislike evf but for video it would make no difference to me as I'd use an external monitor like Stuart does with his A7s.
I keep saying there is something for everyone because there is, there is no such thing as one camera being better than other and the best we can hope is that manufacturers keep pushing things forward so that we can reap the rewards.
Have a nice weekend.
Mat
The reason I continue to reply to the likes of Algrove has nothing to do with his choice of camera, good luck to him, it's more about the continued assertion that one camera is better than another, either because it is cheaper or has more mp or whatever the stated "fact" mainly because I don't believe for one second that there is a better camera, there is just a more suitable camera. The Z is brilliant, just not for me.
I like to look at scenarios, I travel a lot and often, like Tom, to places that are less than ideal. My last trip to Afghanistan was a couple of years ago now but it was fairly tense, the best camera for that time was an RX1, small, good quality but most importantly, I could take shots without drawing attention to myself, no way on earth I would have used a Z or S at that time, larger files are irrelevant from the morgue! So the RX1 is the best camera? Of course not, just at that time.
In Iraq it was much calmer and I travelled all the time in armoured vehicles, I took the D800 and a reasonable selection of lenses, small enough to be useful but not large enough to draw unnecessary attention, if I had the S then I'd have used it too, same physical size and wouldn't have been out of place, I would have taken the Z at a push but would have been more conscious and probably wouldn't have used it as much.
If I had clients needing product shots I'd have a tech cam and back or possibly at a push for small runs the S with the 120 T/S but that would be limiting and only as an addition to what I have, definitely not the Z.
For the studio and for outdoor portraits I'd use the S 006 with a 120cs or 180cs with strobes, having tried lots of cameras it's the best combination of usability, size and image quality is just beautiful. I'm sure there are options for high sync with the Z but weren't at the time I was buying.
I have 3 clients now who want me to shoot corporate portraits and include video, 1 client is very specific on 4k but others not, for non technical video, the 007 is amazing in 4k, it's a case of putting it on a tripod and going for it, no extra lenses no extra system, it's restricted for sure but within its restrictions, perfect. I can't do 4k with the Z.
If I was on a budget then the Z would be a serious consideration, if I wanted big statement prints then I'd rent an tech cam and a db and wouldn't use either S or Z, especially if I was going somewhere to do it with the specific aim of making those pieces.
If I'm wandering about at home as I do most days and wanted MF quality then I'd use Z or S and depending on budget, contax lenses or S lenses.
And so to the SL, I hope it's a success but it's definitely not a mass produced product going to appeal to lots of people, some will love it, some will hate it, hopefully enough will love it to make it a success. It could work for me as a backup/video/faster action cam but I already have a lot of that covered and have never shot faster stuff. Video does look like a key area because more and more clients ask for it, as Marc says, at this point is a "cheaper" option than a second 007, cheaper is obviously relative! What I'd really like to see on the SL is T/S lenses, for me then it would have another benefit but very unlikely that will happen, would be great though! I personally dislike evf but for video it would make no difference to me as I'd use an external monitor like Stuart does with his A7s.
I keep saying there is something for everyone because there is, there is no such thing as one camera being better than other and the best we can hope is that manufacturers keep pushing things forward so that we can reap the rewards.
Have a nice weekend.
Mat
V
Vivek
Guest
Ido not understand why the SL is not a mass produced cam. There are no moving parts, like the RF mechanisms or the mirror box. They should be able to churn out thousands in a week even if we allow for special engravings or red paint.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
I am fully with you WRT MP count. Maybe a 36MP version would have been nice, but actually for most shooting I do today I do not need more than 24MP, which I consider a sweetspot for most photography I do and I guess it would be the same for many others. So better to have an excellent and fast 24MP version than a more limited higher MP count version.
And while the 7k price point for the SL is, it is not more when compared a M240, which I always wanted but never was satisfied with because of several reasons. The SL can be nicely used with my M glass, giving me all the primes I need, plus the zooms will make up for the rest, even moderate wildlife.
So as you say, actually a "cheap" alternative
Peter
SOOO TASTY. Especially when you get from good restaurants. I whole heartedly recommend eating them at YUNGKEE if ever in HK. Along with the famous roast goose (which admitted has gone down in quality but is still quite good).One year old egg?
Century egg is a delicacy in some parts of the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_egg
Those who have seen it know it is gorgeous.
S adapter Q2 2016 (likely a sample at the photo show along with the tele-lens)
R adapter Q3 2016 (likely coming later due to auto aperture)
50 SL Q4 2016 (Hope this lens is KILLER and worth the wait. I think it will be.)
Last edited:
I think it is.. But my needs are probably different from yours. The things that give me joy are probably different from the things that give you joy.
No reason. I think there will probably be a china adapter within a month of launch date. I haven't looked, there might be one already come to think of it.
I have my M to T adapter already ordered. I am contemplating buying the R to T adapter. But I don't know if I want to switch the mounts back on the R lenses just yet. Might not buy the adapter just yet as to not tempt myself.
REALLY can't wait for the S adapter to come. I've already gone out and shot while imagining the crop factor. Came home and did some LR crops and honestly I think I could get along well with the SL and S lenses in a pinch (needing higher ISO or just if I need a backup cam).
My newly acquired 45S would become pointless though on the SL. Due in part to the 50APO having amazing rendering.
Duane Pandorf
New member
Any thoughts on how the SL could impact the next update to the M? Is it possible that Leica can strip some of the extra stuff, i.e; video and slightly slim the M now that the end user has the SL to attach R lenses and have a much better video experience?
Michiel Schierbeek
Well-known member
Matt, you have been hammering the nail in over and over again quiet well now about your preference for the Leica above the Z.
I am not gonne tell you why I like the Z very much. It has been said.
One thing you can be happy about is that the Z, ( sounds like some criminal)probably brought
the price down of the MF Leica body.
I am not gonne tell you why I like the Z very much. It has been said.
One thing you can be happy about is that the Z, ( sounds like some criminal
)probably broughtthe price down of the MF Leica body.
Novoflex already makes this adapter. Nikon to T-mount. Should be others. These are dumb adapters, of course, but for manual focus legacy glass they are fine. It's no harder to make than a E-mount adapter, so they could easily be sourced from the many small CNC shops in China which make some amy varieties for the E. Some of these shops, like 3H series, are better with tolerances than novoflex, and cost about 15% of the novoflex.
ddanois
Member
Just found the one mentioned. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...jOFlBWsUjW_vg4aArZ28P8HAQ&is=REG&A=details&Q=)
Getting more interested however I really need to see the IQ this camera produces. I really like the rendering of the Leica Q. However, the Q makes you fall in love and then she leaves you hanging when you want to quickly switch to more traditional portrait shots.
Duane Pandorf
New member
Sorry if this has already been mentioned on this thread but I just learned that this may become a great landscape option as the with the great weather sealing of the camera body and SL lenses you can also shoot 30 min exposures at any ISO.
From the manual: "Shutter speed range 60s to 1⁄8000s, B for long exposures up to 30min"
From the manual: "Shutter speed range 60s to 1⁄8000s, B for long exposures up to 30min"
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Throw a wrench in here. It has no electronic first curtain which turned out a huge issue on the A7r.
Michiel,Matt, you have been hammering the nail in over and over again quiet well now about your preference for the Leica above the Z.
I am not gonne tell you why I like the Z very much. It has been said.
One thing you can be happy about is that the Z, ( sounds like some criminal
the price down of the MF Leica body.
I approve of competition. The price of the Z may well have influenced the price of the S. If so, I really like the Z; this from a purchaser of the S.
Speedgraphic
Member
Just saw the SL at Photo Plus in NYC. Got it straight from the horses mouth. The SL does NOT support central shutters with the adapter, and will not in the future via firmware. He said they wanted to leave a reason for somebody to get an S. I thought that was pretty lame personally. I can't imagine that's an actual reason not to support leaf lenses. Intentionally crippling a function just to drive sales to a higher end product is a ludicrous move. Also the EVF is very good, but I wouldn't say it's heads above the very best EVFs in a Fuji or Sony. You still have to zoom in to check critical focus, it's just a little less 'grainy' in the finder. I will say that it's not as big as people say. Even the zoom is not too bad overall. It just looks huge in comparison to the camera.
It's possible that Leica will have a heritage or back to our roots campaign. Where they will strip the M down and minimise it's size. Though I don't even see this as necessary. They're probably at the point now where they can slim it down while keeping the tech. But probably won't reduce the thickness very much. Unless the mount sticks out further. So it's likely they'll just keep LV etc etc.. And sell an external EVF that's SL in quality as an expensive add-on.
I think the only impact the SL will have on the future M is marketing. They'll back off on the whole M can do everything attitude, and start spinning the niche RF heritage attitude.