bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
The body is a difference of $3-4K BUT the S series cannot be used with M or T or R lenses. The cost of lenses is the majority cost of a system. I don't know that I'd call a brand new Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2 APO "heritage or vintage glass", or even my lowly Summarit-M 75mm f/2.4 for that matter. My R lenses date from as far back as 1963, but they're generally right up to spec with 'modern' lenses ... a couple were still in production until 2006 or so.
The difference between a 33x44mm sensor and a 24x36 sensor is rather small in terms of what it will net you in DoF control, and there are a lot of extremely good, fast R and M lenses to take advantage of that would cost you tens of thousands of dollars to replicate in S lenses. Likewise, the difference between 24 and 39 Mpixel is pretty small. The adaptation can be done now, immediately, by stacking the already available M to T and R to M adapters, both from Leica and providing all the lens correction and EXIF data as desired.
I think we can all be pretty certain that Leica will use the new, updated sensor (or an even more recent derivative of it) in the next M "typ" series. Why wouldn't they?
Leica has achieved with the SL what most folks dream about: an optimized solution that allows use of (nearly) any lens they've ever made, all the way back to the 1930s. Can't say enough good about that.
G
+1 all good points, thanks G.
giganova
Well-known
The camera is actually not nearly as big as it looks. Almost the same size as a Leicaflex, or a DSLR. When I think about "ugly", I think Nikon/Canon DSLRs, not this camera which I find very beautiful in its simplicity and choice of materials and finishes.
Most people here equate "professional" with sports photography, but I can imagine many situations where this camera would be perfect: live music performances (jazz, classical), ballet/theatre (very soft shutter noise!), people, architecture, some studio work. The camera is more for fine arts, not for going to a rugby match.
You have to understand the camera's heritage: European culture, where people appreciate design and high quality and are willing to pay for it.
Most people here equate "professional" with sports photography, but I can imagine many situations where this camera would be perfect: live music performances (jazz, classical), ballet/theatre (very soft shutter noise!), people, architecture, some studio work. The camera is more for fine arts, not for going to a rugby match.
You have to understand the camera's heritage: European culture, where people appreciate design and high quality and are willing to pay for it.
Bille
Well-known
The Q is 4000 € including the lens.
Yes, and how much is the M240?
Bille
Well-known
The M240 has a USP, the SL has not. It´s Leicas interpretation of the Sony a7. Does it perform any better? We´ll see.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Hsg
who dares wins
Unique selling point.
I don't see how it is an A7 clone... because of it's shape? It's not the same size, weight, materials, dials, components, etc. I'm not making excuses for Leica and I'm not buying the camera, but expecting Leica to compete on price vs. a consumer brand is just never going to happen.
By the way, in Leica's shops, the SL does have a USP.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yes, they are.
I used Leica R 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 90/2 on my A7 almost exclusively, with outstanding performance. Good examples are not cheap, but I expect prices will be rising now that the SL is announced. I'm glad I bought in on so many (11) lenses before this camera was known about.
Nearly all R lenses are brilliant. The latest, from the 90s and early 00s, outperform nearly any other lenses currently available.
The A7 limitations, particularly with wides due to the deep sensor stack, are visible with my 19 and 24, but it has no correction data for these lenses which the SL does. And the SL uses a thin sensor stack, so has less correction to do anyway.
G
fireblade
Vincenzo.
He has to say nice things.
Someone has mentioned that as a camera designed for the pro market it would suit wedding photographers. I agree. One lens, that bazooka 24-90 is enough for a wedding tog.
...and based on what they charge nowadays for a gig, the investment is warranted.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I've got the Kolari-modded A7, so wides are supposed to be a bit less of a problem. But I'm mostly ogling the 50 and 135 at the moment...
Thanks!
thompsonks
Well-known
Seems like opinions differ mainly in terms of posters' expectations of what it was expected or 'supposed' to be:
1. A small, light, mirrorless camera – in effect a Q with interchangeable lenses? From that standpoint a failure in relation to expectations/suppositions, because that's just not what it is.
2. A major improvement over other mirrorless cameras on the market, and obviously 'worth it'? This seems to be where opinions differ most, with pros and cons about body and lens heft, ergonomics, AF, 'features,' lens quality, video, legacy lens holdings and new lens lines, mega-megapixels, articulated screens, whatever. All the sites I've sampled say something about the A7rII / SL comparison, and it looks like the weight of opinion is that except for the money-is-no-object stratum, Leica didn't step far enough ahead for the SL to be obviously worth it to many or most of those expecting (2).
3. Something new and larger, at the old R level but below the S level, and a pro-DSLR-killer or at least a 'contenda'? Maybe so, but too early to say; we'll know when it's a 'system.' We'll see when the lens line develops, but in the meantime it seems useful especially to those with legacy R glass, or those wanting a backup for their Leica S.
My own view: I was hoping for (1) or (2), not particularly (3). It's not (1), and as (2), it's not worth it to me for two reasons:
a. At present I'm rather content with A7rII and a pretty good mix of M, Zeiss C/Y, and Zeiss Sony lenses. (Zeiss C/Y competed with R in quality and now are unreasonably cheap.)
b. Looking ahead, I'm concerned about the time-line that makes Leica products almost obsolescent by the time you can get your hands on them. It takes Leica so long to produce what they've announced that I see no reason to acquire a body in this series now. By the time they produce the AF primes or the shorter zoom that I'd need, the initial SL would probably be 'yesterday' in terms of what Leica or the rest of the industry would be offering.
Kirk
1. A small, light, mirrorless camera – in effect a Q with interchangeable lenses? From that standpoint a failure in relation to expectations/suppositions, because that's just not what it is.
2. A major improvement over other mirrorless cameras on the market, and obviously 'worth it'? This seems to be where opinions differ most, with pros and cons about body and lens heft, ergonomics, AF, 'features,' lens quality, video, legacy lens holdings and new lens lines, mega-megapixels, articulated screens, whatever. All the sites I've sampled say something about the A7rII / SL comparison, and it looks like the weight of opinion is that except for the money-is-no-object stratum, Leica didn't step far enough ahead for the SL to be obviously worth it to many or most of those expecting (2).
3. Something new and larger, at the old R level but below the S level, and a pro-DSLR-killer or at least a 'contenda'? Maybe so, but too early to say; we'll know when it's a 'system.' We'll see when the lens line develops, but in the meantime it seems useful especially to those with legacy R glass, or those wanting a backup for their Leica S.
My own view: I was hoping for (1) or (2), not particularly (3). It's not (1), and as (2), it's not worth it to me for two reasons:
a. At present I'm rather content with A7rII and a pretty good mix of M, Zeiss C/Y, and Zeiss Sony lenses. (Zeiss C/Y competed with R in quality and now are unreasonably cheap.)
b. Looking ahead, I'm concerned about the time-line that makes Leica products almost obsolescent by the time you can get your hands on them. It takes Leica so long to produce what they've announced that I see no reason to acquire a body in this series now. By the time they produce the AF primes or the shorter zoom that I'd need, the initial SL would probably be 'yesterday' in terms of what Leica or the rest of the industry would be offering.
Kirk
The bump is evidently for the GPS and Wi-Fi antennas.
Should note that the 16 S-series lenses will work as native on the SL, with AF & EXIF etc, so all those S lenses in your closet can supplement the current 3 SL lenses for your kit.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
thompsonks -- "a. At present I'm rather content with A7rII and a pretty good mix of M, Zeiss C/Y, and Zeiss Sony lenses. (Zeiss C/Y competed with R in quality and now are unreasonably cheap.)"
Shhhh! Don't spread this around!
Shhhh! Don't spread this around!
rbelyell
Well-known
could you help me understand the 'pure simplicity' of this compard to any other flagship dslr? 'pure simplicity' on this forum used to be defined as on camera and lens manual controls. so what exactly do you mean by that statement that CaNikon doesnt deliver, or REAL leicas do deliver? nothing simple to me about lack of any physical control, menu diving for everything, and forty pounds of gear around my neck...
and have you looked at that picture? her open hand goes no further than 1/3 around that humongous lens! 'no bigger than CaNikon'??!! its freaking 82mm filter size for a normal zoom! what are you talking about? what CaNikon normal zoom has an 82mm circumference? its a joke, that if told by any other manufacturer would have you doubled over you would be laughing so hard.
the only 'huge hit' this is gonna be is for the second hand market in about a year. or if roving gangs of hipsters use the lens as a weapon to 'hugely hit' passersby. honestly, states may outlaw that thing!
BlackXList
Well-known
There's some spectacular mental gynastics going on in here justifying it.
It's not a "next generation" anything, in fact many of the specs are distinctly "last generation".
It's a flagship model for Leica. The Canon & Nikon flagships, and even the next level down have already surpassed it before it's even out.
The assertion that the with the lenses they are "going for broke to make the best performing optics possible"
So why are they variable aperture zooms then? and according to the Ming Thein review the only prime mentioned so far doesn't come out for a year?
"Leica has indeed has just redefined what a pro DSLR should be in 2015."
No, they most definitely havent. They've come out with the camera equivalent of when Homer Simpson was allowed to design a car.
And the comparison to a supercar, if it had an old engine in maybe.
It's not a "next generation" anything, in fact many of the specs are distinctly "last generation".
It's a flagship model for Leica. The Canon & Nikon flagships, and even the next level down have already surpassed it before it's even out.
The assertion that the with the lenses they are "going for broke to make the best performing optics possible"
So why are they variable aperture zooms then? and according to the Ming Thein review the only prime mentioned so far doesn't come out for a year?
"Leica has indeed has just redefined what a pro DSLR should be in 2015."
No, they most definitely havent. They've come out with the camera equivalent of when Homer Simpson was allowed to design a car.
And the comparison to a supercar, if it had an old engine in maybe.
rbelyell
Well-known
amen brother! but in this forum, where a fixed lens zoom cam that tops out at 70/6.5--yes thats 70/6.5--is lauded for its super optics, youre not gonna get any play on factual, objective observation. its like malaria, once you get 'red dot fever', you always have it, it doesnt go away.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Godfrey,
Thanks for the dimension/weight comparison between the new SL and old SL. That does make me feel a little better about the size of the body. The lenses still look kinda large. But, I have begun to view this as a possible home for R lenses. Wonder if it would "couple" with them giving us the old expected behavior with the aperture, meter, and viewfinder composition without the open-up and stop-down gyrations?
Thanks for the dimension/weight comparison between the new SL and old SL. That does make me feel a little better about the size of the body. The lenses still look kinda large. But, I have begun to view this as a possible home for R lenses. Wonder if it would "couple" with them giving us the old expected behavior with the aperture, meter, and viewfinder composition without the open-up and stop-down gyrations?
srtiwari
Daktari
Though a bit inconvenient, there is an add-on EVF for $250 one can use on the M240. For me, selling the M240, and buying the SL, would certainly set me back more than that.
Any other advantages in terms of image quality, based on sensor, or processing improvements ?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The Summicron and Summilux 50mm lenses are outstanding. I have a very early 'Cron, which at 52+ years old is still as precise and solid as it was when it was first sold. Sharp edge to edge even wide open, a lovely lens. My 1971 'Lux is a typical Walter Mandler design - glowy but sharp wide open, razor sharp two stops down. Just lovely lenses.
I have the Elmarit-R 135/2.8 circa 1981. Another superb design, sharp and precise everywhere.
You just can't go wrong with these lenses. Even the "poor" ones are excellent.
G