They've been batting really low percentages lately. It's almost like they don't know how to make a new camera that people want. This camera looks like it's only slightly smaller than their sub-medium format camera. Perhaps it's not meant to be a mirrorless competitor? At this price, it's doubtful they are pursuing Canikon's market. Maybe this is for those who want an S system but can't afford their new prices? I'm pretty sure this system was not meant to compete with any other existing systems.
I think it might be larger in some dimensions than the S 007. People who want the S want (from what I can tell) a. a great OVF, and b. a large camera that is still a pleasure to hold/shoot.
This thing looks like an instant hand cramp.
OK I've revised my "so-so" opinion from the other thread, I think this is just completely nuts.
They'll probably still sell a few thousand to newly-rich people in a few select countries.
rscheffler wrote:
I think it was similar to Contax gear. Both were extremely premium. But I think you're right that photography in general was more expensive.
Sears had an in-house line of cameras called 'Tower'
Their Leica/Nikon/Canon thread mount clone camera started at $175 with the Nikkor 50/2 = $1550
Nikkor 35/3.5 was $90 = $800
Nikkor 50/2 was $107 = $950
Nikkor 50/1.4 was $198 = $1750
Nikkor 85/2 was $179 = $1600
Nikkor 135/3.5 was $145 = $1300
Contax IIa w/50/1.5 Sonnar was $488 = $4350
Contax 35/2.8 was $245 = $2200
Contax 135/4 was $170 = $1500
Contax IIIa with 50/1.5 Sonnar was $534 = $4750 (IIIa had a built-in meter)
Hasselblad with 80/2.8 Kodak Ektar lens and 12 exposure back was $500 = $4450
Zeiss 250/4 was $440 = $3950
'Miniature' film (35mm):
Kodak Plux-X ISO/ASA 50 36 exp. $1.28 = $11.40
Kodachrome ISO/ASA 10 36 exp. $5.50 = $49.00! (also available in 20 exposures for $3.50 = $31)...
I can see why older relatives always said you had to make the film last and the photos count because it was expensive......Show more →
Weren't the 50's the "Leica for all" heyday? From the vintage ads I've seen, they were competitively priced for the times.
It is just so big! One of the touted advantages of Mirrorless is that they are smaller than DSLRs (generally). They got it more or less right with the Q, people raved about how slim it was, that it was large enough but not large, so what are Leica designers/marketers thinking making this beast? Don't they read what hundreds of people write, or are they going after the vulgar bling market like Hasselblad - with cameras to get you noticed?
Yes, the EVF sounds great, but what about the rest?Why would anyone buy one of these over a Nikon D750 or a Canon 5DIII, let alone the Sony A7rII? I would expect the two DSLRs to have much better handling, be much more reliable, with much better battery life, and they already have a great range of lenses to draw on at much more competitive prices.
Focusing manual lenses should be much better on this Leica, but if that is meant to be its forte why make it so big? Why no tilt screen? Why no built-in IS?
Had they made this Q size, then there might have been life in it - many would have been interested, even at the outrageous price. But who wants to walk around with an MF sized camera (This is a little larger than my Bronica RF) when it is only 35mm? I think this camera will bomb, and turn out to be a huge waste of investment, that could have gone into something much, much more exciting.
DoubleNegative wrote:
The Leica SL (Type 601) - an interesting camera that no one will buy.
That is a bit of a stretch. I bet there will be someone getting the camera (place the pre-order right now ). Even the utter failure like the original T got some sales.
All they had to do was take the lens off the Q and replace it with the T mount, and reduce the price accordingly. Really straightforward. What the frak happened.
To be fair they're intentionally holding it wrong to push a certain narrative.
The size is not the problem here (of the camera at least, the lenses look fairly crazy). Sony Alpha Rumors has a comparison with the A7r II. This is still not a big camera. The huge eyepiece the larger size gives room for is actually kind of exciting. Though the grip does seem kind of shallow relative to its height; they maybe needed to add a recess to the body for your fingers as Nikon did for the D750.
Lol. I certainly don't have to worry about being tempted to buy this monstrosity. At least the T had some interesting design going for it. The lenses are HUGE and not even that fast. For its size that 24-90 should be a constant f/2. The Q is looking nicer and nicer.
I'll play with it this week, but color me initially disappointed. Huge camera, giant lenses and a price tag that is simply absurd. For the price of the body only you can get an A7R II with Batis 25, Sony/Zeiss 55/1.8 and Batis 85/1.8. Who will honestly buy this?
Leica accomplished the impossible, they made even uglier camera than my A7!
Size will be OK with those massive lenses (better to handle than A7 series with big lenses), but ergonomic will probably suffer given the flat surfaces and sharp edges...
Disappointingly large, slabby à la A7 series and ultra expensive. Specs look great but reading the dpreview article the AF falls short in low light versus their (marketing) claims.
Pity this means the M240 2nd hand prices will probably remain high. I shall continue to enjoy my M9. If I want big and heavy, but great handling I will use my P645D.
I would rather aspire to an S007 than this block-like aesthetic monstrosity.
Jman13 wrote:
I'll play with it this week, but color me initially disappointed. Huge camera, giant lenses and a price tag that is simply absurd. For the price of the body only you can get an A7R II with Batis 25, Sony/Zeiss 55/1.8 and Batis 85/1.8. Who will honestly buy this?
Go to LUF or GetDPI Leica forum to see a ton of them. I remember one guy at LUF proclaims that the M9 has more dynamic range than any A7 out there, and that Leica doesn't need to worry about anything.
). Even the utter failure like the original T got some sales.