SlowDriver wrote:
The non-APO 35m and 50mm (and rebadged Sigma zooms) were more about cost than about size and weight I feel, i.e. the ability to offer bundles at a price point below $10K.
The Leica lenses are typically also 100g heavier than the original lenses.
The new Summilux 50mm is in my opinion truly the first serious step in reducing lens size and weight.
About the bodies, the SL3 might be lighter than the SL2, but it is still the same weight as the original SL (albeit with IBIS) and e.g 180g heavier than the Canon EOS R5 Mk II.
I don't see much need anymore for a SL4-s, so perhaps one day we instead get something like a Leica version of the S9 with EVF and with a relatively high MP count. ...Show more →
Nevertheless, the facts are the newer Leica non-APO SL 35 and 50 primes are smaller and lighter than the original Leica APO 35 and 50 primes. The newer non-APO zooms are also smaller, lighter ( by some margin) and faster as well compared to the original SL APO zooms( albeit different type of zoom andFLs) I hadn't considered the original SL camera but again the new SL3 cameras are slightly smaller and lighter than the previous SL2 cameras.
And yes, the new Auto Focusing SL Summilux-50 is dramatically smaller than the original SL Summilux-50. I fully expect to see a similarly sized SL Summilux-35 at some point.
For those complaining about the size of the Leica SL system on the forums for the last 11 years, clearly Leica heard the complaints and making efforts to offer a smaller/lighter SL system overall.
*Personally, I hope this doesn't mean the end of the peerless Leica SL APO prime line. But the writing on the wall...IDK
I think the point about the Q series selling so well is that it is first and foremost a "lifestyle" camera. Hasselblad is pushing the X series in this direction as well. Simple luxury items that fit into your lifestyle first and make great photographs secondarily. I think they'll pivot towards making the SL series closer to a lifestyle camera rather than the professional camera that they've marketed it as previously. Hence the smaller/lighter lenses and eventually bodies will follow.
Arka wrote:
Interesting. I initially found the surprising until I realized that the Q3, an expensive as it is ($7000+!!!), costs far less than the current M and includes a lens. And given the increasing emphasis among many consumers on convenience and one-size-fits-all capability in a daily use or travel camera, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Q is outselling the more niche (and much more expensive) M line.
I always find it fascinating whenever we get a peek at official sales data with any of these camera companies. Apparently the Q continues it tops sales trajectory! Personally, I think a Q35 might sell well too.
My experience with Leica SL is even the "lighter" lenses are still quite heavy compared to Panasonic and Sigma lenses. The new 50mm f1.4 is light for Leica but not light overall. For them to really change the dynamic, they'd probably need to come out with a rangefinder style body + a set of Summarit or Elmarit type small lenses that balance well on that body.
I originally jumped into the SL3-S thinking I'd use it with a set of APO primes and the 28-70mm (which weighs similar to the 50mm f1.4 SL). I concluded that kit was still too bulky and I might as well as go all-in and ended up with the 24-90mm and recently the 50mm f1.4 SL original version. I have a M-camera set so that helps that I can just use the SL kit for when I don't mind the weight.
For when I want to use the SL3-S camera in a lightweight manner, I think the best option is actually something like the Panasonic 20-60mm which balances really well and weighs next to nothing and a small prime like the Sigma 45mm or Panasonic 40mm. I don't know how the image quality holds up on a 44mp or 61mp sensor but the Panasonic 20-60mm renders nicely on the SL3-S and my past experiences with the Sigma 45mm on Sony is that it was a nice character lens.
M has definitely increased in price a fair amount in the last 10 years, certainly more than inflation, putting it further out of reach. At one point it was attainable for me and not necessarily more expensive than the top-end mainstream options. But now it's like nearly 2x more for an M11. And some of the Leica lenses I bought ~10 years ago, are now in Canikony super-tele price ranges. While I love the M system, realistically, it no longer brings much benefit to what I photograph. Certainly not technical advantages. But where I think the M system has challenges beyond attainability, is that it's basically competing with itself. There is so much used M product on the market, and at considerably lower prices than new. Plus at least lens alternatives from Voigtlander and others like LLL, Thypoch, etc. It feels like M has become even more of a niche of a niche. And when LLL or another company out of China releases an M digital camera 'replica'... The higher Leica pushes prices, the more likely I see this happening. ...Show more →
Leica prices and their price strategy reminds me of that iconic catchphrase "To boldly go where no man has gone before"...year after year and it seems to be working out well for them...so far.
tzhang4284 wrote:
My experience with Leica SL is even the "lighter" lenses are still quite heavy compared to Panasonic and Sigma lenses. The new 50mm f1.4 is light for Leica but not light overall. For them to really change the dynamic, they'd probably need to come out with a rangefinder style body + a set of Summarit or Elmarit type small lenses that balance well on that body.
I originally jumped into the SL3-S thinking I'd use it with a set of APO primes and the 28-70mm (which weighs similar to the 50mm f1.4 SL). I concluded that kit was still too bulky and I might as well as go all-in and ended up with the 24-90mm and recently the 50mm f1.4 SL original version. I have a M-camera set so that helps that I can just use the SL kit for when I don't mind the weight.
For when I want to use the SL3-S camera in a lightweight manner, I think the best option is actually something like the Panasonic 20-60mm which balances really well and weighs next to nothing and a small prime like the Sigma 45mm or Panasonic 40mm. I don't know how the image quality holds up on a 44mp or 61mp sensor but the Panasonic 20-60mm renders nicely on the SL3-S and my past experiences with the Sigma 45mm on Sony is that it was a nice character lens....Show more →
Yes, the new and used markets offer an abundance of small and very small kits already for some years now to include a few very small L-Mount cameras ( Sigma). Clearly small EDC kits based upon the many options available across multiple brands continue to sell well.I do agree with the idea that a Leica version of the Auto Focusing very small FF Panasonic S9 could be an interesting product offering as I really don't want all the SL cameras to get too much smaller.
Leica Q line is popular because it is brand adjacent to the M series in such a way that they somehow seem like a good value. I like my Q2 but don't personally find it any better that my old Rx1RII..just a different focal length.
It will be interesting to see if Leica can continue to differentiate themselves in such a way that rationalizes their pricing across all of their product lines as they start to prioritize the SL system and EV1, as they'll be competing more closely with the likes of Canon/Nikon/Sony...even(especially?) Panasonic. Imagine if the S9II comes with an EVF and incorporates MF confirmation.
Mystik wrote:
Leica Q line is popular because it is brand adjacent to the M series in such a way that they somehow seem like a good value. I like my Q2 but don't personally find it any better that my old Rx1RII..just a different focal length.
It will be interesting to see if Leica can continue to differentiate themselves in such a way that rationalizes their pricing across all of their product lines as they start to prioritize the SL system and EV1, as they'll be competing more closely with the likes of Canon/Nikon/Sony...even(especially?) Panasonic. Imagine if the S9II comes with an EVF and incorporates MF confirmation.
I don't see the EV1 or SL as compelling Leica offerings given the existence of (respectively) the M rangefinder and pretty much everyone else. For folks that want the M experience, it doesn't seem like the EV1 adds a whole lot and it takes away something really important to a lot of people - the RF. Meanwhile the SL has been a head-scratcher for me ever since it first came out. It's like a heavier, less technically capable version of the camera format that its Asian competitors make for half to a a third the price. Unless you're a Leica diehard and just love the feel and ergos that much, what's the point in spending so much money?
LBJ2 wrote:
Leica prices and their price strategy reminds me of that iconic catchphrase "To boldly go where no man has gone before"...year after year and it seems to be working out well for them...so far.
For people complaining Leica's price strategy, don't under estimate how many rich people around the world.
They are indeed a very small percentage of entire population, however the absolute number of rich people is still much greater than Leica's manufacturer capacity. Just check the ticket price of any professional sport you will know what I am saying. If there are that many people can throw 5k USD to let their kid watch a regular season game, no wonder Leica will never worry about their price is too high.
Arka wrote:
I don't see the EV1 or SL as compelling Leica offerings given the existence of (respectively) the M rangefinder and pretty much everyone else. For folks that want the M experience, it doesn't seem like the EV1 adds a whole lot and it takes away something really important to a lot of people - the RF. Meanwhile the SL has been a head-scratcher for me ever since it first came out. It's like a heavier, less technically capable version of the camera format that its Asian competitors make for half to a a third the price. Unless you're a Leica diehard and just love the feel and ergos that much, what's the point in spending so much money? ...Show more →
I agree, you are missing the point of the SL system. It provides a unique interface and therefore shooting experience compared to the rest of the industry.
It is also the native platform to a set of optics which are are better than any other manufacturer produces. Compare the APO-SL primes MTF charts against others and you will see a meaningful advantage. With the SL system Leica is pursuing image and build quality, not AF performance. Still though not industry leading the current AF performance is very good and competitive in the industry.
LBJ2 wrote:
Leica prices and their price strategy reminds me of that iconic catchphrase "To boldly go where no man has gone before"...year after year and it seems to be working out well for them...so far.
Over the decades, Leica tried to build an entry-level offer a few times. It never really sold well. People either do not buy Leica, buy 2nd hand or accept the prices and go for the bodies and lenses they dreamed of. Not to mention those who have enough money to not care: by definition, they tend to buy a big price, not a product.
So even their current entry level, the Q is overpriced and as counterintuitive as it is, it helps.
pmeheut wrote:
Over the decades, Leica tried to build an entry-level offer a few times. It never really sold well.
My understanding is the analog Leica CL sold well at the time and that Leica killed it because it sold too well... And with regards to more recent efforts like the Summarit M-lenses, the digital Leica CL, etc I have the feeling that Leica could have made those product lines work if they had truly wanted to... I have the impression Leica wants people to buy into those product lines and relatively quickly "upgrade" to more expensive product lines. If they does not immediately happen they kill the product line even though that product line could have been perfectly viable on its own, albeit obviously with lower profit margins....
Leica is not the most expensive manufacturer of cameras any more. They are simply the company who gives the least for the most. I say this as a Leica M owner.
Anyway, where Leica is REALLY expensive is in lenses. Chinese manufacturers are able to sell a 50mm f/0.95 lens for 500 Euro, whereas the Leica costs 10.000.
1bwana1 wrote:
I agree, you are missing the point of the SL system. It provides a unique interface and therefore shooting experience compared to the rest of the industry.
Not compared to Hasselblad. In areas like user interface, menu system and design I would say Hasselblad outdoes Leica.
SlowDriver wrote:
Not compared to Hasselblad. In areas like user interface, menu system and design I would say Hasselblad outdoes Leica.
I said unique interface not better. Why do internet people always have to go there. Leica SL is full frame, Hasselblad is medium format. Different market segments anyway.
1bwana1 wrote:
I said unique interface not better. Why do internet people always have to go there. Leica SL is full frame, Hasselblad is medium format. Different market segments anyway.
You said compared to the industry which would include all market segments.
And about better and having to go there, why do you always go there?
1bwana1 wrote:
It is also the native platform to a set of optics which are are better than any other manufacturer produces.
1bwana1 wrote:
I agree, you are missing the point of the SL system. It provides a unique interface and therefore shooting experience compared to the rest of the industry.
It is also the native platform to a set of optics which are are better than any other manufacturer produces. Compare the APO-SL primes MTF charts against others and you will see a meaningful advantage. With the SL system Leica is pursuing image and build quality, not AF performance. Still though not industry leading the current AF performance is very good and competitive in the industry.
Candidly, I'm very happy to be "missing the point" if that's all it is - weird interface and heavy lenses that "perform" perfectly. Maybe it's good enough to make sales sufficient to justify Leica's continuing investment into the system - heck if I know.
The SL interface is "unique" but not necessarily in a good way (at least, that's how I felt about the SL2 I "test drove" for a weekend). And I haven't looked at an MTF chart in over a decade, let alone made a lens or system decision (either to purchase or use) based on one. It's probably more to do with where I am in my photography journey, but I'm much more concerned about weight and rendering style than across-the-frame sharpness. This is why I'm a huge fan of M lenses.
I suppose any camera system can get to lens perfection when budget and weight are a non-issue. I would be curious to know how many working photographers can monetize the alleged performance differences between SL gear and other high quality systems from Canon, Nikon, or Sony. I suspect not many but I don't have the data to make firm conclusions one way or the other.
Arka wrote:
I would be curious to know how many working photographers can monetize the alleged performance differences between SL gear and other high quality systems from Canon, Nikon, or Sony. I suspect not many but I don't have the data to make firm conclusions one way or the other.
Simple: people work with the gear they prefer for a job. Such preferences come from technical specs but also ergonomics and of course personal choices.
One work better with tool one feel comfortable with which has an impact on the job, the monetization, etc.
This applies to a lot of fields, not only photography.
It is also the native platform to a set of optics which are are better than any other manufacturer produces.
Same old devotee stuff.
If you want the best lenses and the best system capabilities, go Hasselblad and Fuji GFX - similar prices, sizes and weight.
Even in 35mm the Leica lenses do not beat everything else. I recently tested the Leica SL3 plus 35mm f2 Apo - a great combination, enough to satisfy anyone, with exquisite IQ, BUT not better than a Sony A7RIV (note) plus the fabulous GMII 35mm f1.4 - much, much cheaper, faster, smaller, lighter, better, more consistent AF across a range of situations, and of the two lenses, for me, in practice (not manufacturer produced charts), slightly better IQ - sharper centrally, especially at f1.4, better at the edges, better bokeh, better handling, just as much ‘pop’, and for my eyes, better micro-contrast. Some people even say the new Sigma equivalent - much cheaper still - is also a hot competitor.
I agree with you that Hasselblad combo is better than Leica SL3 combo as I have the X2Dii and SL3.
But your point about Sony is not based on facts or use. I have the Sony A1II with 35mm 1.4. While it is an excellent combo with great AF, it does not hold a candle to the SL3 35 apo. Just shoot them wide open and see the images side by side, it will be an eye opener for you.
