It could potentially be an interesting direction for the SL.
It will be interesting to see what will happen to the SL series - maybe a fate like the S-series encountered (and the R-series before)?
You are forgetting the CL/TL2 series... .
The SL is Leica's video solution. I don't see them exiting that market.
So far it is, this is correct. But imagine the EVF-M and SL lines merge in the future - it would make the SL itself redundant. All the SL gimmicks could land in some kind of future EVF-M - biggest culprit there is that the EVF-M currently doesn't have AF capability (and video is kind of already there with EVF/LiveView, software fix/addition!).
I think the days for the "pure" SL line are numbered especially now under new ownership. It doesn't take much to see where cost can be streamlined by merging EVF-M and SL. Both the EVF-M and the SL are not the biggest sellers currently, so bundling them up might be a wise business decision. And making the camera body smaller than the SL body is what Leica should have been doing years ago IMO! This way Leica would have actually a competitive MLC system compared to the bigger camera brands with smaller package size, capability to mount both M- and (in the future) AF-based lenses.
And, the IBIS absence ... would require a thicker M body ... ummm, not seeing that happening too soon (although, i've long wondered if the M240 body might be big enough for IBIS).
So, the conundrum is manual focus with IBIS either means a larger body M, or the SL with adapters. Either way, you need the engineering real estate for the additional functionality.
The other thing about a "small" EVF-M ... with AF / EVF / IBIS (or not) ... the real estate for heat dissipation and battery storage. I mean, the battery life of the EVF-M (read WITHOUT AF) already is a pittance of the M. Add AF and IBIS capability to that, and you'll get what ... 6 shots per battery (I joke, but the hit will be big agains that small AAA cell size battery).
THAT was the Achilles heel to the CL. I really liked the CL, and the prospect of a FF size CL, that would include the option for AF / MF in the rangefinder location (i.e. TLC corner) is attractive in spirit, but the battery life of the CL was sweet when mounting my M lenses, and abysmal when shooting with AF glass.
I can't see anything but a repeat if you keep the M size and stuff EVF, AF and IBIS, etc. into it. Heat dissipation (video especially) and battery life are pieces of the puzzle very few folks consider when they start racking up their electronics "wish list" to be tucked into a tiny M package.
It could potentially be an interesting direction for the SL.
It will be interesting to see what will happen to the SL series - maybe a fate like the S-series encountered (and the R-series before)?
You are forgetting the CL/TL2 series... .
The SL is Leica's video solution. I don't see them exiting that market.
So far it is, this is correct. But imagine the EVF-M and SL lines merge in the future - it would make the SL itself redundant. All the SL gimmicks could land in some kind of future EVF-M - biggest culprit there is that the EVF-M currently doesn't have AF capability (and video is kind of already there with EVF/LiveView, software fix/addition!).
I think the days for the "pure" SL line are numbered especially now under new ownership. It doesn't take much to see where cost can be streamlined by merging EVF-M and SL. Both the EVF-M and the SL are not the biggest sellers currently, so bundling them up might be a wise business decision. And making the camera body smaller than the SL body is what Leica should have been doing years ago IMO! This way Leica would have actually a competitive MLC system compared to the bigger camera brands with smaller package size, capability to mount both M- and (in the future) AF-based lenses.
And, the IBIS absence ... would require a thicker M body ... ummm, not seeing that happening too soon (although, i've long thought the M240 body might be big enough for IBIS).
So, the conundrum is manual focus with IBIS either means a larger body M, or the SL with adapters. Either way, you need the engineering real estate for the additional functionality.
The other thing about a "small" EVF-M ... with AF / EVF / IBIS (or not) ... the real estate for heat dissipation and battery storage. I mean, the battery life of the EVF-M (read WITHOUT AF) already is a pittance of the M. Add AF and IBIS capability to that, and you'll get what ... 6 shots per battery (I joke, but the hit will be big agains that small AAA cell size battery).
THAT was the Achilles heel to the CL. I really liked the CL, and the prospect of a FF size CL, that would include the option for AF / MF in the rangefinder location (i.e. TLC corner) is attractive in spirit, but the battery life of the CL was sweet when mounting my M lenses, and abysmal when shooting with AF glass.
I can't see anything but a repeat if you keep the M size and stuff EVF, AF and IBIS, etc. into it. Heat dissipation (video especially) and battery life are pieces of the puzzle very few folks consider when they start racking up their electronics "wish list" to be tucked into a tiny M package.
It could potentially be an interesting direction for the SL.
It will be interesting to see what will happen to the SL series - maybe a fate like the S-series encountered (and the R-series before)?
You are forgetting the CL/TL2 series... .
The SL is Leica's video solution. I don't see them exiting that market.
So far it is, this is correct. But imagine the EVF-M and SL lines merge in the future - it would make the SL itself redundant. All the SL gimmicks could land in some kind of future EVF-M - biggest culprit there is that the EVF-M currently doesn't have AF capability (and video is kind of already there with EVF/LiveView, software fix/addition!).
I think the days for the "pure" SL line are numbered especially now under new ownership. It doesn't take much to see where cost can be streamlined by merging EVF-M and SL. Both the EVF-M and the SL are not the biggest sellers currently, so bundling them up might be a wise business decision. And making the camera body smaller than the SL body is what Leica should have been doing years ago IMO! This way Leica would have actually a competitive MLC system compared to the bigger camera brands with smaller package size, capability to mount both M- and (in the future) AF-based lenses.
And, the IBIS absence ... would require a thicker M body ... ummm, not seeing that happening too soon (although, i've long thought the M240 body might be big enough for IBIS.
So, the conundrum is manual focus with IBIS either means a larger body M, or the SL with adapters. Either way, you need the engineering real estate for the additional functionality.
The other thing about a "small" EVF-M ... with AF / EVF / IBIS (or not) ... the real estate for heat dissipation and battery storage. I mean, the battery life of the EVF-M (read WITHOUT AF) already is a pittance of the M. Add AF and IBIS capability to that, and you'll get what ... 6 shots per battery (I joke, but the hit will be big agains that small AAA cell size battery).
THAT was the Achilles heel to the CL. I really liked the CL, and the prospect of a FF size CL, that would include the option for AF / MF in the rangefinder location (i.e. TLC corner) is attractive in spirit, but the battery life of the CL was sweet when mounting my M lenses, and abysmal when shooting with AF glass.
I can't see anything but a repeat if you keep the M size and stuff EVF, AF and IBIS, etc. into it. Heat dissipation (video especially) and battery life are pieces of the puzzle very few folks consider when they start racking up their electronics "wish list" to be tucked into a tiny M package.
It could potentially be an interesting direction for the SL.
It will be interesting to see what will happen to the SL series - maybe a fate like the S-series encountered (and the R-series before)?
You are forgetting the CL/TL2 series... .
The SL is Leica's video solution. I don't see them exiting that market.
So far it is, this is correct. But imagine the EVF-M and SL lines merge in the future - it would make the SL itself redundant. All the SL gimmicks could land in some kind of future EVF-M - biggest culprit there is that the EVF-M currently doesn't have AF capability (and video is kind of already there with EVF/LiveView, software fix/addition!).
I think the days for the "pure" SL line are numbered especially now under new ownership. It doesn't take much to see where cost can be streamlined by merging EVF-M and SL. Both the EVF-M and the SL are not the biggest sellers currently, so bundling them up might be a wise business decision. And making the camera body smaller than the SL body is what Leica should have been doing years ago IMO! This way Leica would have actually a competitive MLC system compared to the bigger camera brands with smaller package size, capability to mount both M- and (in the future) AF-based lenses.
And, the IBIS absence ... would require a thicker M body ... ummm, not seeing that happening too soon (although, i've long thought the M240 body might be big enough for IBIS.
So, the conundrum is manual focus with IBIS either means a larger body M, or the SL with adapters. Either way, you need the engineering real estate for the additional functionality.
The other thing about a "small" EVF-M ... with AF / EVF / IBIS (or not) ... the real estate for heat dissipation and battery storage. I mean, the battery life of the EVF-M (read WITHOUT AF) already is a pittance of the M. Add AF and IBIS capability to that, and you'll get what ... 6 shots per battery (I joke, but the hit will be big agains that small AAA cell size battery).
THAT was the Achilles heel to the CL. I really liked the CL, and the prospect of a FF size CL, that would include the option for AF / MF in the rangefinder location (i.e. TLC corner) is attractive in spirit, but the battery life of the CL was sweet when mounting my M lenses, and abysmal when shooting with AF glass.
I can't see anything but a repeat if you keep the M size and stuff EVF, AF and IBIS, etc. into it. Heat dissipation (video especially) and battery life are pieces of the puzzle very few folks consider when they start racking up their electronics "wish list" to be tucked into a tiny M package.
It could potentially be an interesting direction for the SL.
It will be interesting to see what will happen to the SL series - maybe a fate like the S-series encountered (and the R-series before)?
You are forgetting the CL/TL2 series... .
The SL is Leica's video solution. I don't see them exiting that market.
So far it is, this is correct. But imagine the EVF-M and SL lines merge in the future - it would make the SL itself redundant. All the SL gimmicks could land in some kind of future EVF-M - biggest culprit there is that the EVF-M currently doesn't have AF capability (and video is kind of already there with EVF/LiveView, software fix/addition!).
I think the days for the "pure" SL line are numbered especially now under new ownership. It doesn't take much to see where cost can be streamlined by merging EVF-M and SL. Both the EVF-M and the SL are not the biggest sellers currently, so bundling them up might be a wise business decision. And making the camera body smaller than the SL body is what Leica should have been doing years ago IMO! This way Leica would have actually a competitive MLC system compared to the bigger camera brands with smaller package size, capability to mount both M- and (in the future) AF-based lenses.
And, the IBIS absence ... would require a thicker M body ... ummm, not seeing that happening too soon (although, i've long thought the M240 body might be big enough for IBIS.
So, the conundrum is manual focus with IBIS either means a larger body M, or the SL with adapters. Either way, you need the engineering real estate for the additional functionality.
The other thing about a "small" EVF-M ... with AF / EVF / IBIS (or not) ... the real estate for heat dissipation and battery storage. I mean, the battery life of the EVF-M (read WITHOUT AF) already is a pittance of the M. Add AF and IBIS capability to that, and you'll get what ... 6 shots per battery (I joke, but the hit will be big agains that small AAA cell size battery).
THAT was the Achilles heel to the CL. I really liked the CL, and the prospect of a FF size CL, that would include the option for AF / MF in the rangefinder location (i.e. TLC corner) is attractive in spirit, but the battery life of the CL was sweet when mounting my M lenses, and abysmal when shooting with AF glass.
I can't see anything but a repeat if you keep the M size and stuff EVF, AF and IBIS, etc. into it. Heat dissipation and battery life are pieces of the puzzle very few folks consider when they start racking up their electronics "wish list" to be tucked into a tiny M package.
It could potentially be an interesting direction for the SL.
It will be interesting to see what will happen to the SL series - maybe a fate like the S-series encountered (and the R-series before)?
You are forgetting the CL/TL2 series... .
The SL is Leica's video solution. I don't see them exiting that market.
So far it is, this is correct. But imagine the EVF-M and SL lines merge in the future - it would make the SL itself redundant. All the SL gimmicks could land in some kind of future EVF-M - biggest culprit there is that the EVF-M currently doesn't have AF capability (and video is kind of already there with EVF/LiveView, software fix/addition!).
I think the days for the "pure" SL line are numbered especially now under new ownership. It doesn't take much to see where cost can be streamlined by merging EVF-M and SL. Both the EVF-M and the SL are not the biggest sellers currently, so bundling them up might be a wise business decision. And making the camera body smaller than the SL body is what Leica should have been doing years ago IMO! This way Leica would have actually a competitive MLC system compared to the bigger camera brands with smaller package size, capability to mount both M- and (in the future) AF-based lenses.
And, the IBIS absence ... would require a thicker M body ... ummm, not seeing that happening too soon (although, i've long thought the M240 body might be big enough for IBIS.
Jun 22, 2026 at 06:28 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #17059860 « Could the rumored Leica SL 50 Lux II be M-like in rendering? »
.