RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
wolfloid wrote:
From my perspective it all goes back to a very bad decision Leica made when they introduced the large and bulky SL system. They were warned at the time by hundreds, if not thousands of photographers to make the camera small enough, and light enough, but handy. Instead, against all advice, they chose to continue in the tradition of the original SL and the R8 - both continually criticised for being very good cameras, but too big. Of course, as usual, they refused to listen. Consequently they have a nicely designed SLR-styled mirrorless camera that does not sell well because it is too big, and too heavy. Now they are committed to that line, and will not do anything that might cannibalise its meagre sales. I don’t know who was responsible for the size decision, but they have prevented Leica from having a more, or more loved, competitive SL line. Selber Schuld!...Show more →
I think folks tend to look at this inverted. Imo, the SL line isn't the M line ... too big. It is the S series Medium Format level optic scaled down into FF format. S = the optic, L = the mount (compare to the now defunct TL designator).
Karbe himself has stated that the SL and M lines offer two distinctly different approaches ... Max IQ vs. Smaller Package.
Folks that want the SL to be M-ish ... well, there are certain engineering constraints in play, with regard to battery power and heat generation to run all those gadgets of EVF, IBIS, Focusing Aids, Next Gen Computational Algorithms for Face Detection, etc. And, then ... along with more power production from larger batteries, comes the heat generated from doing so, thus a need for heat dissipation in the form of thermal mass / sinks, etc. Then, there's the matter of real estate for IBIS, and the list continues regarding the engineering decisions they went with.
Sure, folks can start pointing to non-Leica offerings, but when you get deeper into the engineering of the build (which we never really will) you may find that there are engineering build differences beyond what the average consumer is going to be aware of / want / need to be concerned with. That said, I (vaguely) recall one of our members dropping his SL into the river and telling of its survival story. That doesn't happen by chance ... it is due to the build. And, yes that kind of build requires things that may be a bit more robust than the smallest / skinniest form factor available. I think one might to consider the different viewpoint before tossing the baby out with the bathwater as them not learning from the past. Rather, I think they may have learned from the past and decided to shrink down the S series into the SL series.
So, (imo) the perspective of "too big" for FF ... can really be looked at as "smaller" for MF level optics as they effectively killed off the S series (to streamline their offerings), into the SL platform.
As to those who point out the lower sales of the SL line, compared to their other offerings ... I'd suggest taking a lap to compare the SL sales vs. S sales (I have not), for an alternate viewpoint on where the SL really sits in their strategy of what they have brought to the market.
|
.