retrofocus wrote:
I disagree - I know several people who own an A7 series camera, and the main reason for all of them getting it is the smaller body size, followed by FF sensor. Tele lenses of course will always be longer - your examples of 300 mm FL lenses are no comparison to my point to make regular FL lenses smaller. It is funny that always tele lenses are used as example when defending bigger sized lenses made for smaller camera bodies. Do you think that this SL camera body is predominantly used with long tele lenses - I don't think so. ...Show more →
Well, we don't know yet how it will predominantly be used. But if a fair number of former R system users adopt it, then I think the SL's size makes sense relative to R lens sizing and the availability of some very desirable telephoto lenses.
Considering the trend in modern optical design is towards considerably larger, high performance lenses, then I do feel a somewhat larger body is logical. Some of the smaller lenses we've seen from Sony, such as the 28/2, like the Q's 28/1.7, and a number from Fuji (and probably others, too) rely a lot on in-camera processing for some lens corrections in exchange for size reduction. With these large introductory zooms, Leica is implying they're aiming for traditional optical corrections rather than in-camera, but that remains to be seen.
When the a7 first launched, I was told by Sony that the primary design goal was to make the camera as small as physically possible. Obviously this has been attractive to many photographers and I can appreciate why, having lugged around D/SLRs for a couple decades. But to expect all future lenses to be suitably small for such (IMO) undersized cameras is unrealistic, unless one is willing to accept design compromises that likely mean greater reliance on in-camera corrections. With 42-50MP and greater sensors, this may be more realistic. But it seems Leica's philosophy is somewhat different, which I appreciate and am glad to have available as an option.
Oct 20, 2015 at 10:09 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
dpap1978 wrote:
Nice summary. But why do you think that it will behave better with M-lenss? That remains to be seen...
The sensor has been described as designed to work with all Leica lenses--so I think that means thin cover glass. And one review reports it works much better than a stock A7 but perhaps not as well as a Leica M240--although this latter test (i.e.,vs. the M240) was not done. In another review the author shot it with a lot of different Leica glass and reported no problems and a lot of great shots. We will see with testing, but if it had thick cover glass I think we would know from even these early reports.
Regarding adopting R glass to this body, I fail to see what advantage it will have over adapting the same lenses to a Sony. They will still need an adapter and there would appear to be no advantage sensor compatibility wise (unlike with M wides). On the other hand, using R glass on recent Sony bodies allows the use of IBIS, which nets a significant advantage to the Sony quite apart from arguably superior sensor options in resolution and high ISO performance. What am I missing?
I think what the market really wants now is a true pro mirrorless. Like 1D-something but without the mirror, and without sacrificing anything in terms of pro AF, fps, buffer, dual slots, weather sealing, maybe some native lenses but most importantly compatibility with Canon or Nikon lenses (especially the long ones).
It looks like Leica tried to get there first, but did it in a typical Leica fashion, leaving everyone somewhere between disgusted, drooling and baffled
I'll be honest. I'd love one, but for the price I'd rather go for a small fishing boat.
Spyro P. wrote:
I think what the market really wants now is a true pro mirrorless. Like 1D-something but ... without sacrificing anything in terms of pro AF,
Well, this could take some time, take a look at my post back from June, physics is the enemy...
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
I don't get why people complain about the price. It's around the same level as the Nikon D3X was, and the D3X was price in 2008 dollars. The 3 year old Canon 1D C was twice as expensive and offering less of everything except size and weight. It's a Leica intended for professional use this, not a Digital Rebel.
Even many serious pros considered those to both be wildly overpriced products which offered next to nothing to justify their additional cost compared to the D3 or 1D X. So yeah, the SL is a lot like them
Lee Saxon wrote:
Even many serious pros considered those to both be wildly overpriced products which offered next to nothing to justify their additional cost compared to the D3 or 1D X. So yeah, the SL is a lot like them
And none of the Canikon standard zooms cost upwards of $5,000
I can accept 5k photographic lens, but not so on a digital body. 3k is probably my limit. Digital body phases out quickly, and I will not pay 7.5k for that.
Oct 20, 2015 at 11:42 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Luvwine wrote:
Regarding adopting R glass to this body, I fail to see what advantage it will have over adapting the same lenses to a Sony. They will still need an adapter and there would appear to be no advantage sensor compatibility wise (unlike with M wides). On the other hand, using R glass on recent Sony bodies allows the use of IBIS, which nets a significant advantage to the Sony quite apart from arguably superior sensor options in resolution and high ISO performance. What am I missing?
I think you make a very good point. The advantage on the SL for R lenses may be auto-aperture (there is at least speculation about that). We won't know for sure until the R adapter is released next year, but having IBIS would definitely be an advantage of shooting these lenses on Sony Mk II models and the A7r II would have higher resolution. You may get EXIF data too, but then again maybe not.
You have to be wary of generalizing about 'what the market wants' as it is not an single entity - every product manager knows it is all done by niches, from cars and fridges to phones...and cameras.
One very clear and strong market sentiment is *small, light and functional*. Why carry lead in your saddlebags? Leica might rewrite the Meatloaf song to 'one out of three ain't bad', but not many would agree. Even at say, $4000, this lemon would not move in substantial numbers. Its lenses are laughably huge, and the kit zoom on it takes the weight to 2000 grams (4.4 pounds).
Here is an alternative view on the matter from a senior Sony exec :
"Size. It’s all about size – it’s smaller and lighter. That’s the main reason of choosing our products.
If you don’t mind the feel of a camera that’s bigger and heavier please carry on. If you want to take a lighter and smaller camera, the Sony Alpha 7-series might be preferred. As long as the quality is the same, smaller and lighter is better I think. That is our policy."
Some lenses are trending towards heavy and large - right now you can buy any just released heavyweight Milvus lens from B&H, but their sales managers are trying to work with the six month delays for the hugely back-ordered 335 gram Batis 25 and the 475 gram Batis 85. The same occurred with Loxia lenses to a lesser extent - despite no AF. Obviously neither Zeiss nor Leica have yet fully seen the light, and it is hard to turn an ocean liner around on a dime.
Taylor Sherman wrote:
Looking forward to seeing this on the "camerasize" website
It might be about the same size as the Fuji GF670?
It's about the same size as the Nikon D750. So, not as massive / ginormous as some people claim. It's definitely not medium format size. For those who feel that the Sony A7 series are awkwardly small, the SL may be about the right size.
I’ve been using R lenses with the Leica T to M adapter and the Leica M to R adapter stacked.
This works remarkably well – I have changed the bottom right button on the rear panel to bring up Lens Profiles. With the stacked adapters, the camera recognises the 6 bit coding on the M to R adapter and brings up a list of R lenses to choose from. Better than this, it remembers the last R lens used, so if you are regularly using the same R lens it will set the profile automatically.
Of course, this has a number of advantages over using R lenses on dSLR or other mirrorless cameras. First of all the fact that the exif information is filled in automatically, but more importantly it means that the focal length of the lens is registered and can be used in the Auto ISO settings to set the maximum exposure time tot 1x or 2x the focal length.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
I don't get why people complain about the price. It's around the same level as the Nikon D3X was, and the D3X was price in 2008 dollars. The 3 year old Canon 1D C was twice as expensive and offering less of everything except size and weight. It's a Leica intended for professional use this, not a Digital Rebel.
Because all Leicas are overpriced Even when they are not.
There is alot under the hood on this thing, except pixels Ming tells it best in his preview.
Add up the extra stuff in there, vs the 3100USD A7r2; EVF is WAY better, build is WAY tougher, design is much more thought out etc. Many other big and little things. Then add low production numbers and the price I'm sad to say is fair.
philip_pj wrote:
Here is an alternative view on the matter from a senior Sony exec :
"Size. It’s all about size – it’s smaller and lighter. That’s the main reason of choosing our products.
Then why do the sonys keep getting bigger also, and have lots of big DSLR size lenses?
Looks aside, I think the SL is a gorgeous piece of kit, though apparently grip is not the best: Ming's hand got sore.
If there was actually a system of AF lenses to go with this beast, from a 500/4 to UWA zoom, you could see some high pros really craving the whole thing. They just can't do that though. Where I in Leica's shoes I would get the mount and electric specs out to sigma et al right away and encourage them all to make AF lenses for it. That seems unlikely.
Even so I bet they sell out for some time, like the 240 did, and the Q has. Why price it less than cost if you can't make a ton?
I'll almost certainly never have one, but I have to say I admire the monster, honestly.
davewolfs wrote: DEFAMATION - are you (pick favorite word) kidding me? It is what it is. Looks completely fine. Sorry you didn't approve of their product shot.
Nah, I completely agree.. It does seem as if they purposely tried to make the camera look bigger then it is. Look, it's not a small camera. But I've seen about 50 images of the camera in about 45 peoples hands, and it's clearly malicious intent on the DP site. No other shot I've seen of the camera, makes it look that big. In fact, even with a small M lens on it, in some peoples hands the camera looks downright reasonably sized.
Then again, I shoot with an S-system so what do I know?
hiepphotog wrote:
A lot to criticize and a lot to like might work with a $2000 camera. But for a $7k+, I'm not sure I would be willing to make too much compromises. I admit I really like the 50 ISO thing, big EVF, dual slot (mainly because of UHS-II support). I'm not sure about its responsiveness yet, but the GUI does seem to get more complicated. I read most of the reviews out there right now and some said because of the amount of customization, the menu system is similar to Sony's now. However, the lens system is what really kills it for me; too big and heavy.
Again, I thought Leica is the master of making small lenses with high IQ. I guess Karbe is not in the team. Paying this much a camera would require a viable ecosystem into the future, not just to adapt stuff. Sony is already excellent at this, big lens can always be used with a gripped A7. And the future of SL system is medium format size and weight with a competitive FF IQ (but not the top). To me, the look of the camera is irrelevant. I can put up with the ergonomics for light lens, but for big lens, I don't know if that grip (contour-less) is going to be comfortable. In the end, I would consider buying it if it's not for what Jono Black said in his review that its M compatibility is good but not as good as the M240. Again, sound to me like a modded Sony cam (for less than half the price). If anything, the next M with this same tech would be a big hit for Leica.
Sony only gets dethroned when this camera is adopted more by the mass. The difference is academic when Leica can only sell this to a few individuals....Show more →
Who says in the future Leica won't make 28/35/50/75/90 Summicron lenses of a smaller size? Or perhaps pancake Summarit lenses? You're basing it on top quality complex zoom lenses. It would be like if Sony actual made Otus AF lenses for their A7.. Right now Sony only has decent lenses at best, even those offered from Zeiss (Batis, which BTW aren't really that small for slow primes).
The FE 35/1.4 is pretty big. I hated that lens, had it two weeks, shot a few jobs with it, and just couldn't. It's not heavy, because it's cheap feeling.
I don't want to bash Sony, I really don't. I've seen some AMAZING images from Sony shooters. I just think it's silly to compare what they did, to what Leica is doing until you see the results first hand. Or at least until a lot more sample images are floating around the net. I'll be the first to admit that Leica is delusional once I've throughly tested the system.
And look I'm with you, I think Leica pricing is crazy stupid. Especially for their 2 year lifespan bodies. That's something that really needs consideration from the CEO/CFO/Chairman... And I urge everybody to write in.
rscheffler wrote:
Regarding the question about how I calculated current prices for the 1953 lens prices, I just used a USD inflation calculator. I don't know what the average income was at that time vs. now. But yes, it seems people now have more disposable income, or are much more willing to go into debt to maintain a certain lifestyle. And why not when credit is so easy to obtain? Isn't that the whole point... to trap people into a debt/consumption cycle from which to profit?
Gives everyone time to save their pennies. And Sony to release one or two more camera iterations.
---------------------------------------------
Why does mirrorless have to automatically equal small/tiny/undersized?
The mistake Sony made was waffling and falling short of high image quality with some of their lenses, such as the 24-70, while still making them comparably sized to DSLR system lenses that don't balance well with the petite a7 form.
While we still have to see objective, independent reviews of the new SL glass, it would seem Leica is not trying to promise anything about small size and rather aiming for best possible image quality. Both of the zoom designs are complex, particularly the 90-280. If anything, they've taken a page out of Zeiss's lens design philosophy. I have a Canon 300/4 and it's not a small lens. Similar in size to a 70-200/2.8, if not slightly larger. How is Leica going to make a 280/4 smaller? That would seem to defy currently available technology.
From what I've gleaned so far, the SL's size was somewhat dictated by lens size. What's the point of doing what Sony did - make a super small camera - when the native glass will be large and the resulting combination will be awkward to use?
I agree with Brad and this seems somewhat aimed as being a junior S-system. If you're in the Leica ecosystem and want small, you go Q or M. ...Show more →
I just seen this.. You said it better then me
I love my M-glass, I love my small 50APO. But I also love my S-glass and my 100S.
I would own the Otus lenses in a heartbeat if they focused more on rendering and less on being perfect. But then again, I think there is a market for both. I'd pay a premium size wise for Otus if I was in need of a perfectly corrected sterile lens (and I don't mean sterile in a bad way, I really don't).
rscheffler wrote:
Except the NX500 has no EVF. I guess I'm an exception and would be one who prefers a EVF camera in an RF design with the VF in the top left...
I wonder too and would have preferred a more ergonomically moulded grip over the design-school-inspired look. Maybe something a pack or two of Sugru can fix?
I use my left eye to focus most of the time. I can use my right eye, but I'm left eye dominant. This is one of the most annoying things about the new SL (aside from price). I punch myself in the face every time I lift my D750 to my eye. I never do it with my M or Q (I use my right eye with the Q because it's small).
Luvwine wrote:
Regarding adopting R glass to this body, I fail to see what advantage it will have over adapting the same lenses to a Sony. They will still need an adapter and there would appear to be no advantage sensor compatibility wise (unlike with M wides). On the other hand, using R glass on recent Sony bodies allows the use of IBIS, which nets a significant advantage to the Sony quite apart from arguably superior sensor options in resolution and high ISO performance. What am I missing?
Leica has a better sensor subjectively speaking. Sony has a better sensor on spec sheets.
The type of photographer you are will determine what camera you prefer.
Not to mention the UI and ergonomics (button function/place) is vastly superior on the Leica, this isn't subjective.
Also nobody has seen the R adapter. It might come with some type of "gimmick".
Here's a photo showing that when you don't hold it wrong to make it look taller it's really not very big at all. The 24-90, though, is rather big. It's probably about the right size (or maybe even a tad small) for a 24-90/2.8, but for a 24-90/2.8-4 ... it better be darn good.
Ming Thein says the EVF has very low shutter lag and very high refresh rate, which to me is even more important than its impressive size (though that's great too). And if the adapter for R lenses will have auto-aperture that would be really cool. And I really don't care much about having more than 24 megapixels. He also says they avoided Sony's (repeated with the A7/r II) idiotic mistake of putting in an anemic processor which slows everything down. But there's just no justifying this price.
Even when they are not. 
Ming tells it best in his preview.