Leica SL

[BernardLanguillier]

I find it quite entertaining seeing so many of you criticizing the price. The same people who spent even more on Canon 1Ds cameras.

How do you know they are the same people?

But I am one of them and I don't see these positions as being incompatible.

Indeed, I'll probably be buying a Nikon D5 but would not consider the SL for the following reasons:
- I own a large array of lenses that I will be able to mount on the D5. The equivalent lenses are not available today on the SL and some will probably never be (fast super tele),
- I shoot a large majority of images in portrait orientation when I use my 400mm f2.8 and like the ergonomics of pro full size DSLRs,
- I believe that the D5 will be much better at high ISO than the SL (I need excellent ISO 25,600 for some projects),
- I believe that the D5 will have a must faster AF in low light where I use super tele lenses most,
- I believe that the battery life will be significantly superior.

So the problem of the SL isn't its price, it is what it offers for that price relative to other existing or soon to become available options.

Cheers,
Bernard

[David Anderson]

I find it quite entertaining seeing so many of you criticizing the price. The same people who spent even more on Canon 1Ds cameras.

Yes, every generation of 1 series.
But cameras have gone up in talent and down in price since the last 1Ds and I wonder could even the mighty Canon or Nikon expect to get the same sort of money for the next models in the current climate ?

I also don't think the price of the Leica SL or the 24mp sensor is going to be as much of a sticking point as the lack of lenses available at launch.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I find it quite entertaining seeing so many of you criticizing the price. The same people who spent even more on Canon 1Ds cameras.

Nice you are entertained. At least with Canon and Nikon, the lenses are arguably good and don't cost an arm and a leg.

[eronald]

I find it quite entertaining seeing so many of you criticizing the price. The same people who spent even more on Canon 1Ds cameras.

Hehe. The problem is that the Leica does not seem to do substantially more than say a 5D3; In fact it does less since it needs a battery to make the VF work, and many of us spend hours behind the VF *not* taking the shot.  And "allowing access to the Leica lens range" is not as if it *did* something, the A7R2 does that too, and so in fact does the $1K A7 and $2K A7II.

My Leica dealer is not enthusiastic, and neither am I. Leica is simply trying to sell the same mucho rico buyer 4 or 5 cameras, each of which will be left in the cupboard, while in the end the Dlux or MiniLux or whatever a Panasonic is called these days get all the use. And also, the local enthusiasts simply don't have the money anymore for this game.

Look at the Panasonic LX100 - now that is a cutie.

Edùund

[telyt]

... "allowing access to the Leica lens range" is not as if it *did* something, the A7R2 does that too, and so in fact does the $1K A7 and $2K A7II.

I don't see how to use a Leica S lens on any E-mount camera.

[Petrus]

It will still take some time before hard core news, sports and documentary professionals switch to EVF system cameras. I admit I have started using Fujifilm X-T1 cameras for my assignments, because they are so small and light and unassuming compared to a pair of D4s. But I am not doing much hard news or sports anymore, still I keep the Nikons because I have practically all possible lenses and they get the shot when going gets tough. And 36 MPix is nice sometimes. EVF on those Fujis is good and fast. It is really not the resolution or refresh speeds/lag which is the problem, but that the viewfinder is not "perfect" in low light and that I can not see through the viewfinder until the darn contraption has turned on. It is just a second or two, but still… Also for this reason it just eats batteries (maybe couple of hundred shots, Nikon >1000). I suspect the new Leica does have the same inherent problems, and it does NOT have the advantage of being light and small like Sony and Fujifilm (which is APS-C, but good).

If the camera was called Exacta SL, introduced with one lens and costing maybe 2000 bucks, nobody would bat an eyelid. The read dot does have some magic in it. Even if it was capable of using old Leica manual focus lenses, what is modern in that? Others have a huge array of fast AF lenses already, Leica will never catch up with them.

[SZRitter]

If the camera was called Exacta SL, introduced with one lens and costing maybe 2000 bucks, nobody would bat an eyelid. The read dot does have some magic in it. Even if it was capable of using old Leica manual focus lenses, what is modern in that? Others have a huge array of fast AF lenses already, Leica will never catch up with them.

Given some of the features and construction, $2000 seems a little low, even from an off-brand. I think if it came out with another brand for $2500 to $3000, it still would be priced accurately. With the red dot, I would say $4000 to $5500 seems accurate for the body. Honestly, Leica should be selling their bodies at just a bit above the competition, and focusing on making the money from the optics.

My guess is though, the sales volume is so low on their bodies compared to Sony and the likes, that they need to add a lot more R&D cost and Production cost per body than everyone else.

On a side note, did you know Exacta means "a bet in which the first two places in a race must be predicted in the correct order"? Just found that interesting, and yes, I did have to look it up.

[Petrus]

On a side note, did you know Exacta means "a bet in which the first two places in a race must be predicted in the correct order"? Just found that interesting, and yes, I did have to look it up.

For me Exacta means a SLR camera from the fifties. As a kid I could not afford to dream about Nikon, so I dreamed about an Exacta kit…

 

[telyt]

Posted on fredmiranda.com by a visitor to PhotoPlus:

"The EVF is something very very special. I would say that without question, this is the best and fastest responding EVF that I have every seen. The color and fidelity and refresh rate of the EVF were excellent. Now at the show we did not have taxing lighting conditions, but much of the time I almost felt like I was looking through a good OVF possibly approaching that of my R8 which is saying something."

[Rob C]

For me Exacta means a SLR camera from the fifties. As a kid I could not afford to dream about Nikon, so I dreamed about an Exacta kit…

 

Then enjoy your parallel universe.

Those cameras were Exa and Exakta Varex; I had two of the latter, and damned good they were for the times...

;-)

Rob C

[Paulo Bizarro]

It will still take some time before hard core news, sports and documentary professionals switch to EVF system cameras.

I think this is a fundamental question, and at the core of the future for EVF cameras' potential in the pro applications.

I am convinced that if they wanted, Canon and Nikon would have produced EVF cameras for the pros already; but the acceptance of EVF cameras by pros will probably be slow. One other very important aspect is related to lenses: if Canon and Nikon introduce EVF cameras for pros, they better be sure that:

a. the existing lenses work in the new camera seamlessly and without loss of performance;

b. otherwise, if a new mount needs to be created, and pros need to replace their lenses, all hell will break loose, so to speak. And if the thing works via adapters, then point a above needs to be ensured.

[telyt]

The SL as a sports camera with a prototype 90-280 APO:

https://www.facebook.com/oliver.richter.509/posts/895510983863749

[OldRoy]

I think this is a fundamental question, and at the core of the future for EVF cameras' potential in the pro applications.

I am convinced that if they wanted, Canon and Nikon would have produced EVF cameras for the pros already; but the acceptance of EVF cameras by pros will probably be slow. One other very important aspect is related to lenses: if Canon and Nikon introduce EVF cameras for pros, they better be sure that:

a. the existing lenses work in the new camera seamlessly and without loss of performance;

b. otherwise, if a new mount needs to be created, and pros need to replace their lenses, all hell will break loose, so to speak. And if the thing works via adapters, then point a above needs to be ensured.

Call me dim, but what the hell is it about an EVF which would cause (a) to occur, let alone (b) to become necessary?

[SZRitter]

Call me dim, but what the hell is it about an EVF which would cause (a) to occur, let alone (b) to become necessary?

I think he is equating EVF to the loss of the mirrorbox, thus a shorter mount to sensor distance. While this doesn't have to be the case (didn't Pentax or someone make a mirrorless with the same distance?), it seems that it is a trend that will continue, and logically so.

[BJL]

. . . if Canon and Nikon introduce EVF cameras for pros, they better be sure that:

a. the existing lenses work in the new camera seamlessly and without loss of performance;

b. otherwise, if a new mount needs to be created, and pros need to replace their lenses, all hell will break loose, so to speak. And if the thing works via adapters, then point a above needs to be ensured.

These are good points, but this question is fair too:

Call me dim, but what the hell is it about an EVF which would cause (a) to occur, let alone (b) to become necessary?

The main concern with (a) is that with some mirrorless cameras, their contrast-detect AF system does not work well with lenses designed for phase-detect AF.  The issue seems to be that CDAF often requires several rapid changes of direction (""hunting"), so that lenses with heavy, strong ring-style AF motors, excellent at adjusting focus with a single fast movement in one direction, are sluggish with CDAF. (I experience this with Four Thirds SLR lenses adaptor-mounted to a Micro Four Thirds EM5 body.)  Thus, CDAF-friendly lenses use linear stepper motors instead.

So long as that is so, getting decent AF with an "EVF camera" does require new lenses as in (b).  However, the good news is that more recent advances in on-sensor PDAF, refinements of CDAF, and Panasonic's "depth by defocus" are closing that gap, and both Canon and Nikon are already working on some of this.  Canon is even doing innovative things with on-sensor AF in some SLR's, for the sake of their live view and video modes.

Aside: As others have said, it might be that progress in digital still photography will more and more be driven by "trickle down" from video, so tilting the playing field towards EVF cameras.


P. S. I was pleased to see Sean Reid in his Leica SL review here try to move away from the negative term "mirrorless" toward a more positive naming based in the presence of an EVF, just a day or two after I tried the same thing!  But I doubt that his EFC = Electronic Finder Camera will catch on.

[Petrus]

In the end news/sports etc pros will start buying and getting EVF cameras when they are good enough. No sooner, no matter how much people who do not really know enough the realities in the field praise the advantages of EVF over the good old mirror box. I use both EVF and DSLR systems professionally, and if I had to choose between them I would still choose DSLR, because 95% of the assignments can be handled with those, 80% with EVF cameras. I do not believe Leica SL changes the situation, even if it had a decent set of lenses.

[MatthewCromer]

If the ability to do video clips is part of the requirement for pro sports reportage (and it is!), the EVF technology is far superior.

[telyt]

P. S. I was pleased to see Sean Reid in his Leica SL review here try to move away from the negative term "mirrorless" toward a more positive naming based in the presence of an EVF, just a day or two after I tried the same thing!  But I doubt that his EFC = Electronic Finder Camera will catch on.

EFC has already been used: Electronic First Curtain.  Perhaps this could be re-named E1C.

[jjj]

P. S. I was pleased to see Sean Reid in his Leica SL review here try to move away from the negative term "mirrorless" toward a more positive naming based in the presence of an EVF, just a day or two after I tried the same thing!  But I doubt that his EFC = Electronic Finder Camera will catch on.

Why is it a negative term? Most cameras of a similar form/function have used mirrors, so by stating there is no mirror, it is easily understood what they are. It's a relative term, not a negative one.
Making up very clunky names like Electronic Finder Camera, years after a simple word has already become commonplace for such cameras is a bit foolish. Particular when there already exists a common phrase/acronym for such ways of viewing, i.e. EVF.

EFC has already been used: Electronic First Curtain.  Perhaps this could be re-named E1C.

Like this will ever happen.

[speedyk]

Why is it a negative term? Most cameras of a similar form/function have used mirrors, so by stating there is no mirror, it is easily understood what they are. It's a relative term, not a negative one.

Like topless.