Why the SL?

[Godfrey]

An interchangeable lens Q would be a dream camera! I'm also wondering if the SL lenses are pre-build for a future medium format S mirrorless image circle. As many have said, they are just so big and the point for mirrorless for many of us was the size advantage it allowed. In my somewhat limited experience with the SL, it was the best 35mm cameras I have used. I just prefer to shoot medium format when you when you compare the price and size, with the X1D coming out (soon?!). And then I have the Panasonic gh4, soon to be gh5 for most of my video stuff with the Leica lensesfor that, which are great.

The point of mirrorless was to eliminate the flapping mirror and allow better lens designs for digital sensors. Small was a side effect made possible because the format of the first mirrorless cameras was 1/4 the size of a FF sensor.

G

 

[biglouis]

An interchangeable lens Q would be a dream camera!

Since you raise it, although a bit OT for this thread my view is that I want a Q with a fixed 24-70 zoom. It does not even have to be fast, e.g. f4 would suffice - although being a fixed lens camera it could actually be f1.8 and the distortion could be handled in body.

I speak as a current Q user. A zoom Q would be ideal.

The sensor in the Q/SL is so damn good but for me the SL is just too big and heavy for what it delivers.

Just my two cents on that one.

 

[sjg284]

An interchangeable lens Q, or a line of multiple focal length Qs (28/50/90) like Sigma's models.. would be awesome.

Longtime M user.. M2->M3->M6->RD1->M8->M240
6 month Q user..

Love the weight & overall responsiveness/quality of the Q.
Also enjoy the better DR above ISO 1600 than the M240.. it is really quite noticeable now. I find the files much more malleable.

Love my M lenses.. wish the body were lighter.
Love the RF for outside-the-frameline view and composing on the street. Given my eyeglasses though, I only see outside the frame lines @ 50mm...
Being honest with myself, I also find either that..
My RF focussing is getting worse (a scary thought @ 32)... or the Q is just so good, it makes my M hit-rate appear abysmal by comparison.

So what do I do from here...
The new M is rumored to be smaller/lighter, but the same old sale old (middling EVF & video quality)... solving 1 of my problems but not the other.

Or get an SL to use with M lenses focussing with that big, beautiful EVF... solving the focus problem but not helping the weight problem.
Of course M240+grip+thumbs-up is comparable to SL+M adapter..

 

[JoshMerwin]

Was really expecting(hoping) for the TL to basically be that interchangeable Q, kind of a blending between the SL and original T. But seems we will have to wait for a true T replacement. Wasn't trying to take the thread too far off topic, was just trying to give some context to where I thought the SL stood in terms of the overall camera scape and what my wants were. If I only wanted to shoot with 35mm format, I'd hands down choose the SL. Between the stills and video features and Leica lenses and adaptable lenses, it's a very complete system.

 

[PeterA]

The SL doens't cost much more than the 240 MP I bought and apart from weight is a better camera in every way. Whilst heavier and less transportable than an M - The SL is smaller and lighter than the S - which was to big for me as a walk around camera - its lenses being larger and heavier than the SL lenses - and I can't mount an M lens on the S or Ziess Otus or Milvus. I dont do studio lighting photography anymore and therefore the absence of leaf shutter lenses is not a problem for me. the only issue I have with the SL is that the camera is easily capable of having a larger megapixel chip - but clearly the SL with a 50 megapixel chip on board - would be in direct rather than indirect competition with the S series.

I do however appreciate that it is early times in Sl land and there is plenty of scope for problems to emerge with both my zooms - fortunately the camera itself has bnehaved flawlesslesly since day one and continues to do so. I'm in no hurry to replace my M lenses with autofocus primes from Leica - until they show some indication that the SL line will not be a sacrificial purposefully underpowered poor cousin to the S line.

I can understand why people would prefer a Sony AR711 as a lens carriage 40 megapixels is much more than 25 - but the Sl to me is a beautiful industrial design that feels perfect in hand and matched to a Nocti - it is special magic.

 

[Vivek]

Peter, it may be much more than the pixels.

But, the rounded pixel count is 42mp vs 24mp.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, it may be much more than the pixels.

But, the rounded pixel count is 42mp vs 24mp.

Good point!