Re: Leica SL images and specs. Looks somehow familiar...
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 we 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.
Re: Leica SL images and specs. Looks somehow familiar...
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 we 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 their 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.
Re: Leica SL images and specs. Looks somehow familiar...
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 we do the sonys keep getting bigger also, and have lots of big DSLR size lenses?
Looks aside, it is a gorgeous piece of kit, though apparently grip is not the best.
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 their 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.
Oct 21, 2015 at 12:24 AM
Previous versions of uhoh7's message #13252695 « Leica SL images and specs. Looks somehow familiar... »
Even when they are not. 
Ming tells it best in his preview.