Leica to relase a Sony A7 direct competitor?

[Theodoros]

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/leica/56286-leica-sl-601-oct-20th-post665703.html#post665703

In case any one were wondering. No CS shutter support with S lenses and none planned, which means none with H lenses as well. Leaf shutters in 35mm format remains a pipe dream.

No EFCS either, something the A7R was crucified for.

Given that the poster provides inadequate evidence about his findings on the SL and the fact that he keeps posting negatively on it and even claimed in his first message that he wouldn't be interested on the camera, I would take his "findings" with a lot of salt... Particularly if this (exclusive to him) "info" is spread by others that have also a negative attitude on some makers products and additionally have "exclusive" information on an adapter that will be released (by Leica) 6 months later and the official position of Leica is "full compatibility with the S-lenses)...

Technically, there is no reason why leaf shutter wouldn't be operational unless if Leica will exclude the ability in purpose... Which (given their tradition) I'm sure they would never do given that it can only damage SL sales but S sales of cameras and lenses too.

[telyt]

No EFCS either, something the A7R was crucified for.

I'd be OK with a lack of E1C shutter if the camera is quiet and responsive without it.  I like the feature on the a7II but it's not nearly as useful as I'd hoped because it results in uneven exposures at shutter speeds faster than 1/1000 sec when using adapted lenses.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

Do you need to control shake at shutterspeeds of 1/1000 or less? I fail to see the reason that would be necessary.

[synn]

Given that the poster provides inadequate evidence about his findings on the SL and the fact that he keeps posting negatively on it and even claimed in his first message that he wouldn't be interested on the camera, I would take his "findings" with a lot of salt... Particularly if this (exclusive to him) "info" is spread by others that have also a negative attitude on some makers products and additionally have "exclusive" information on an adapter that will be released (by Leica) 6 months later and the official position of Leica is "full compatibility with the S-lenses)...

Technically, there is no reason why leaf shutter wouldn't be operational unless if Leica will exclude the ability in purpose... Which (given their tradition) I'm sure they would never do given that it can only damage SL sales but S sales of cameras and lenses too.

Dude, read the post. He is reporting what a Leica rep said at photo plus.
Did a Leica rep personally tell you otherwise? Did they personally promise you the sinar mini view cam with full electronic support that you keep talking about?

Please understand the difference between fantasy and reality.

[Theodoros]

Dude, read the post. He is reporting what a Leica rep said at photo plus.
Did a Leica rep personally tell you otherwise? Did they personally promise you the Sinar mini view cam with full electronic support that you keep talking about?

Please understand the difference between fantasy and reality.

Oh, I do realize the difference between fantasy & reality...  the question here is rather if he does, or even if you do... Dude!

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

A good reason to use EFSC is that it reduces response time in addition to reducing camera shake. On a EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) camera the shutter needs to be closed before exposure, adding response time.

With EFCS the camera can respond very fast, but aperture may not be able to close before exposure. So shooting stopped down or at full aperture there should not be any problem.

I am in favour of keeping things simple, so I wouldn't like to disable EFCS if shooting at 1/1000 or faster. Right now I always use EFSC, but I seldom shoot fast shutter times.

Best regards
Erik

Do you need to control shake at shutterspeeds of 1/1000 or less? I fail to see the reason that would be necessary.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

I get your point. Having to disable it in a changing light or bracket might be cumbersome.

I thought of another. Short exposure time induced diffraction due to thin slit would be a reason to want unlimited shutterspeeds with EFCS.

[telyt]

I get your point. Having to disable it in a changing light or bracket might be cumbersome.

Make that is cumbersome.

[Brent Daniels]

I also believe that the camera will be a major success among Hollywood professionals and the rest of major cinema studios around the world... People keep forgetting that Leica promotes this as a PRO platform (they have it in their major promotion logo in capitals)... not a Sony or Nikon or Canon alternative... and even if all the makers have cameras addressed to a pro task... Leica's idea of a pro is all kinds of tasks, whether if its Magnum, or Studio, or fashion, or product, or architecture, or cinema, or art...
[/quote]

For once I have to agree with Theodoros. Leica must have some serious film ambitions for this camera if they are displaying it at PhotoPlus in NYC with a PL mount and Leica cini lens on it. The cost of this new body is a drop compared to the cost of an amazing set of matching f2 Leica Cini primes. A very interesting new camera especially with that amazing glass.

[shadowblade]

I also believe that the camera will be a major success among Hollywood professionals and the rest of major cinema studios around the world... People keep forgetting that Leica promotes this as a PRO platform (they have it in their major promotion logo in capitals)... not a Sony or Nikon or Canon alternative... and even if all the makers have cameras addressed to a pro task... Leica's idea of a pro is all kinds of tasks, whether if its Magnum, or Studio, or fashion, or product, or architecture, or cinema, or art...


For once I have to agree with Theodoros. Leica must have some serious film ambitions for this camera if they are displaying it at PhotoPlus in NYC with a PL mount and Leica cini lens on it. The cost of this new body is a drop compared to the cost of an amazing set of matching f2 Leica Cini primes. A very interesting new camera especially with that amazing glass.

I don't know what sort of 'pros' they're aiming the camera at, but it's certainly not pro still photographers.

Spending that much on a rapidly-depreciating asset that doesn't do the job any better than another camera a third the price (as far as still photos goes) sounds like a pretty bad business investment. It would only make sense if the camera had a certain capability you needed that wasn't available in a cheaper body.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I don't know what sort of 'pros' they're aiming the camera at, but it's certainly not pro still photographers.

Spending that much on a rapidly-depreciating asset that doesn't do the job any better than another camera a third the price (as far as still photos goes) sounds like a pretty bad business investment. It would only make sense if the camera had a certain capability you needed that wasn't available in a cheaper body.

What you wrote above describes many costly electronic gadgets that are being sold today. For example, the latest and greatest smartphone from a well known brand does the same thing as many other smartphones, and costs a lot more...

Apparently Leica have their economic model sort of right, because they have been making and selling cameras and lenses for decades, and said products are always a lot more expensive than existing options. And they are still profitable... go figure.

Nobody should buy a camera, or an electronic gadget, from a "business investment" perspective. Unless you can pay said camera after doing a couple of assignments.

[rainer_v]

Does anybody care, that the camera has 24Mp? Thats not a small detail and if the SL would have 36 , 42 or 50 Mp everything else could be discussed. At least if the Dr will be somehow in  a similar league than sony and nikon are. We will see.
And if the zoom would have a fixed 2,8 aperture too. Would be still a heavy weight but not so out of range as it is with 2,8-4. 
All specs sounds so mediocre and outdated AND overpriced ( maybe except the viewfinder ), that i cant see where this cam can land. I dont know about Hollywood and filming, but for the kind of photography i am doing, it looks absolutely unintersting to me.

[shadowblade]

What you wrote above describes many costly electronic gadgets that are being sold today. For example, the latest and greatest smartphone from a well known brand does the same thing as many other smartphones, and costs a lot more...

Apparently Leica have their economic model sort of right, because they have been making and selling cameras and lenses for decades, and said products are always a lot more expensive than existing options. And they are still profitable... go figure.

Nobody should buy a camera, or an electronic gadget, from a "business investment" perspective. Unless you can pay said camera after doing a couple of assignments.

Their camera division is a shadow of what it once was - profitable, but hardly booming. They make a lot of scientific and medical equipment, though.

And, if it's aimed at pros, it's all about cost vs benefit - if you can do the same thing at a third of the cost, you'd be dumb to go for the more-expensive option.

[Theodoros]

A camera with flange distance of only 19mm, no mirror box and wide mount that permits light to hit the sensor totally unobstructed even at the furthest corners, is the ideal alternative of using it instead of an MFDB on a view camera... If the camera also has wider pixels, it's only a bonus for light perception and if it has great live view, it makes it ideal for the job... How can one call a camera with the above properties as inappropriate for still life photography (without providing any reasons), ...that, I fail to see!

Furthermore, if one uses the Leica S lenses on the front standard of a view camera and the SL on the rear, it will allow the SL to communicate with the SL lenses with full communication interface (it's only a cable needed since the interface is the same as the S lenses adapter)... I guess that a pro that uses Leica S and wants to add a view camera on his system for still life (with the lenses he already uses) and also needs a back up camera with additional LL capabilities and great video performance (with or without the view camera used as a video camera)... He can't find a better alternative than the SL (at least for now...).

[shadowblade]

Does anybody care, that the camera has 24Mp? Thats not a small detail and if the SL would have 36 , 42 or 50 Mp everything else could be discussed. At least if the Dr will be somehow in  a similar league than sony and nikon are. We will see.
And if the zoom would have a fixed 2,8 aperture too. Would be still a heavy weight but not so out of range as it is with 2,8-4. 
All specs sounds so mediocre and outdated AND overpriced ( maybe except the viewfinder ), that i cant see where this cam can land. I dont know about Hollywood and filming, but for the kind of photography i am doing, it looks absolutely unintersting to me.

Very much so. For that reason alone, I wouldn't consider it a 'do-everything' camera suitable for all professional uses (not ideal for landscapes, architecture, studio, shooting hi-res backgrounds for cinema/3dFX). Although, if it's aimed at action and video, it's probably fine. 32MP or higher would make it more appealing, though, for 8k use.

[shadowblade]

A camera with flange distance of only 19mm, no mirror box and wide mount that permits light to hit the sensor totally unobstructed even at the furthest corners, is the ideal alternative of using it instead of an MFDB on a view camera... If the camera also has wider pixels, it's only a bonus for light perception and if it has great live view, it makes it ideal for the job... How can one call a camera with the above properties as inappropriate for still life photography (without providing any reasons), ...that, I fail to see!

Describes the A7rII/A7sII perfectly. Choose between higher resolution or better low-light sensitivity. Or get both and still spend less than a single Leica body.

Furthermore, if one uses the Leica S lenses on the front standard of a view camera and the SL on the rear, it will allow the SL to communicate with the SL lenses with full communication interface (it's only a cable needed since the interface is the same as the S lenses adapter)... I guess that a pro that uses Leica S and wants to add a view camera on his system for still life (with the lenses he already uses) and also needs a back up camera with additional LL capabilities and great video performance (with or without the view camera used as a video camera)... He can't find a better alternative than the SL (at least for now...).

Any body whose main benefit over cheaper bodies only concerns Leica S shooters has a small market indeed.

I don't know anyone using the Leica S body together with a view camera - it kind of defeats the purpose of an integrated system. Most of the view camera users I've come across use Phase One or Mamiya backs.

[Theodoros]

Describes the A7rII/A7sII perfectly. Choose between higher resolution or better low-light sensitivity. Or get both and still spend less than a single Leica body.

Any body whose main benefit over cheaper bodies only concerns Leica S shooters has a small market indeed.

I don't know anyone using the Leica S body together with a view camera - it kind of defeats the purpose of an integrated system. Most of the view camera users I've come across use Phase One or Mamiya backs.

Does Sony offers interface compatibility with Leica S lenses? If a Leica user would choose a (say) Cambo Actus to use with Sony A instead of an MFDB, he will have to use a new series of lenses with it... I was hopping that one can understand what he replies on and reply on the subject... otherwise it turns to "Babel"... In addition nobody ever mentioned the S camera as to be used with a view camera (where this came from?).

As I said before, the SL provides a cross-platform for pros that already use (or plan to use) Leica family (inc Sinar) equipment... If one doesn't fit to the equation, it natural to have a different approach to the product... Nobody blames him for that... I still don't see why he insists for his perspective to be implemented by others that have different view... None is (or can be) the "center of the world"... isn't it?

[pegelli]

I still don't see why he insists for his perspective to be implemented by others that have different view... None is (or can be) the "center of the world"... isn't it?

In my mind and reading his posts he doesn't insist it won't happen, at least no more or less that you insist it will happen. The only thing I read is that some people find it less likely while others (incl. you) find it more likely. My opinion is "time will tell" 

[synn]

The only person INSISTING anything here is the one who claims there WILL be a Sinar view camera with full electronic support for Leica S lenses (Not announced, not even rumored) and that the SL will support S lenses with leaf shutter functionality (Leica rep at Photoplus has confirmed this will not happen, no or ever).

We all know who that person is.

[Theodoros]

The only person INSISTING anything here is the one who claims there WILL be a Sinar view camera with full electronic support for Leica S lenses (Not announced, not even rumored) and that the SL will support S lenses with leaf shutter functionality (Leica rep at Photoplus has confirmed this will not happen, no or ever).

We all know who that person is.

I called Leica on the LS lenses support matter that is claimed by a questionable credibility poster that happenned... and their reply was that "it never could have happened, or was a Leica person there authorized to give such information"...  I hope  you understand that you keep promoting some fiction information (that trolls usually create on web) as being facts... OTOH, there where never rumors on Sinar's new products posted on web, nor there will ever be...

As far as the SL's target group, I've nothing else to say but to repeat what I said earlier...

..."if Leica wanted to compete with Sony, they could make a Q with interchangeable lens (that would surely cost less than the Q since there would be no lens involved)... obviously Leica targeted to what they think that their users would currently need... they can make an interchangeable lens Q whenever they like and wish"...

I suppose that there is none (sensible) who can argue with that...