Right, but it is the first modern mirrorless that is as large as a large DSLR and the lenses are very large for standard zooms. Since it is the first to do this, it wasn't unrealistic to expect it to have been smaller. The A7 is tiny in comparison. ...
I don't "love it" or any horsepucky like that. I'd like to
discuss it with some objectivity and reason rather than the prevailing wind of emotional pathologies. The title of the thread is, after all, "What is Leica thinking?" And there's been little sensible discussion addressing that topic.
Modern mirrorless cameras were invented for one reason, primarily: to restore the usability of the viewfinder for smaller-than-35 format TTL cameras. The side effect of compactness comes about because of the smaller than 35 format and the loss of the mirror box. Micro-FourThirds gets the most advantage because it has the smallest sensor; NEX and Fuji X get a nice boost from it, but lens size begins to creep up since the more oblong format needs more coverage, relatively speaking. Still, it's a passible advantage and lets them sell on the basis of compactness.
Other advantages to the EVF as a viewfinder are recognized ... preview, pre-exposure exposure analysis, overlays, focusing aids, all that stuff. Good stuff ... modern EVF cameras outstrip SLRs rapidly when it comes to real, useful viewfinder capabiities. Once the EVFs get to enough density and fast enough refresh, they are a viable alternative.
But then the FF rage hits the market like a tornado. FF sensors have dropped in price precipitously and everyone wants one. Sony's in a good position: they have a good sized mount for NEX and a partial lens line that will mostly work, some bits through adaptation. They can capitalize on the compact size lent by the NEX basic electronics and mount, with some issues that they can work around.
Remember that until the Leica SL, the ONLY other FF mirrorless line is Sony A7 in all its variant bodies. A7 bodies are reasonably compact, and a couple of the lenses are too. Not many. And what's the typical complaint we've heard over and over again? Big, expensive lenses, not enough lenses, and poor battery performance. Never mind a few of the other kluges along the way.
Big expensive lenses, and not enough lenses ... Let's think about that a moment. The lens designers at Sigma said a year and some back that developing premium lenses for Sony E mount was too difficult because it was too tight on the format. That turns out to be quite true. Despite how shallow the mount register is, I found shrouding with wide lenses, even lenses designed for SLRs with mount adapters that gave as clear a shot as possible to the sensor. This is one of the reasons I gave up on the A7 line. The results with a beautiful lens like the Elmarit-R 19mm or Nikkor 18mm were sub-par with corner masking and poor resolution.
Moving on ... Leica had gotten to the point of prototypes with FF DSLR, the R10, and dropped the project as it had become too unwieldy, too expensive. To try to compete against the like of Nikon and Canon without producing the exact same thing they were making netted them a price war and little else. Meanwhile, Leica knows that the most valuable thing their customers have are Leica lenses, lots of them, and any digital camera to use Leica lenses from Leica had to be of an outstanding level to get the most out of those lenses.
They tackled the RF cameras first, as this is Leica's legacy. Creating digital RF bodies was a particularly knotty problem as the lenses were designed to take advantage of exactly what was hardest to deal with in digital sensors: moving the lens inset into the body to keep overall size small and lens designs simple. They made it. Through the M8, M9, and then into the M typ 240 they achieved the level of quality and responsiveness that Leica was famous for. Most of the user lens investments were validated with great results. The M9 was a tremendous success and netted financial security to develop other things.
The decision to build the S system must have been an interesting one. Here they could take advantage of a known viewfinder technology at an even larger size where it would excel, and the additional weight and complexity of lenses wouldn't matter much since the camera moved into the medium format digital class. They built a superb system, albeit at a very high price.
That leaves all those R lenses and eager users out there. Forty some years of brilliant R lenses ... What to do? Well, Sony had proved that a FF sensor worked with a digital viewfinder, with some level of problems. Now the question was "how well can it be made to work if we start from scratch and optimize the design for ALL our formats and lenses?"
When the T came out two-and-some years back, I laughed. "They're getting ready" was my first thought. They didn't make the NEX mistake; they designed a robust lens mount with more than enough diameter to provide unshrouded coverage for a full 24x36 sensor. If you compare the mount diameter vs sensor diagonal ratio, it goes beyond even the optimum that Olympus and Kodak came up with for the FourThirds system. The R system itself has a very large mount diameter ... this is an important factor in why Leica could build such outstanding and exotic lenses for the R system and have them perform so well. Unlike the Olympus-Kodak trade off of getting just enough optimization that a relatively modest price nets maximum gain, Leica prioritizes on maximum gain first and price afterwards.
So what is Leica thinking? Pretty much the same as always, "How can we make the best?" and then, "How can we maximize the value of our customers' lenses?" The SL is sized right for the lenses that are needed to cover the format properly, unlike the A7 series, with the right body heft and plenty of room for fingers and controls without clutter. They're building the body the same way they do the T, so it is a rigid, solid structure that bodes very well for heat dissipation and stability of the sensor and lens mount, and minimizes shutter vibrations all at the same time. In the dedicated lenses for the camera, they're putting in optical stabilization for best of breed performance tuned precisely to each lens. The mount is robust enough to not shroud very wide-angle R and M lenses, the sensor stack is thin enough to minimize problems with oblique angled ray trace lenses, etc etc. And the best EVF yet will support all the features and viewfinder quality expected of a top of the line Leica, sibling to the S SLR.
What I'm a little shocked at is that they've done all this and managed to hold the price to just the same as the M typ 240.
The Leica SL is likely not for everyone, just like the M typ 240 is likely not for everyone. The value proposition for it is very different from the value proposition for a Sony, which lives on the notion that every other year you'll buy another disposable thing that's better than the last. It's certainly not the "buy cheap, use until broken, replace with better" model. It's a value proposition that says, "you have $50,000 worth of our beloved lenses, here's how to make them shine for another decade until we deliver a camera that pushes them even further along."
I suspect that once the Leica SL gets into the field, it will prove itself worthy several times over. Oh, I'm sure there will be glitches too. In order to push boundaries, you have to be willing to fail some of the time.
I look forward to seeing one in the flesh.
🙂
G
