The Leica SL: What is Leica thinking?

[f16sunshine]

I can agree with that.

+1

But with a Caveat.

People should be allowed t express their surprise and disapointment without being put in their place constantly.
It's Big. It really is big. I'm surprised and happy with that. Someone else may be surprised and disappointed.
So what? Live and let live.
It's a Forum thread not a UN think tank ! 😎

 

[uhoh7]

did you see the picture? her open hand cannot get around more than 1/3 of the lens! seriously? its 82mm! cmon now, reality check anyone? lets pretend sigma put this out, you still behind it? dont think so, not at all.

I can't believe everyone is taken in by that photo which is an intentional exaggeration. It's source alone should give you pause.

Here is the Antidote:


SLshot by All The Websters, on Flickr

Now, calm down and try to access the camera rationally 😉

 

[burancap]

I can't believe everyone is taken in by that photo which is an intentional exaggeration. It's source alone should give you pause.

Here is the Antidote:

Now, calm down and try to access the camera rationally 😉

Indeed!

As there is no scale in this photo other than the known sizes of both the small and large Apple Watches, the SL is clearly HUGE!!!

 

[jsrockit]

Looks awesome in that photo (with a M lens)! I hope manufacturers start making larger mirrorless cameras to match these boner lenses they keep making. Or make smaller lens to fit smaller cameras. Still Leica's SL zooms are too big for my liking.

 

[f16sunshine]

^^^

That there fellah likes him some gaffers tape. Keeps an extra wrap handy around his arm 😛

 

[rbelyell]

oh i see, the photo you dont like, the one with the actual lens leica just put out, is misleading and doctored. the one you like, that has a small rf lens attached presents the accurate picture of 'the new standard in af dslr'. you guys have some set of stones you know that? what the heck is accurate about your picture when it doesnt have the accompanying af lens that forms the foundation of this system?

no one needs justify how they spend their money to anyone else. i vehemently disagree with anyone who criticises the purchase of this or any other nonleathal item. where you guys go totally off the rails is in demanding others live your fantasy, insisting that the subjective is objective, telling those who disagree that our reasons for not wanting this is hogwash. THAT is what pisses people off, and certainly what pisses me off.

showing a fully irrelevent example is not disproving a relevent one. you think the photo of the lady holding that monstrosity is doctored, provide some proof or withdraw the charge. or show your own pictures of the SAME equipmement--the camera and lens released yesterday--to provide a different context. or better yet, admit the obvious, that the kit is monstrous, and just declare you dont give a darn you still want it. youll get a lot of support for that, including mine. but stop this other BS.

 

[jsrockit]

It's only a camera...

 

[Godfrey]

My points are:

• The photo of the woman holding the camera and zoom lens is very distorted by foreshortening, making the rig look unnecessarily ginormous.
• The SL body is sort of an average SLR size and weight.
• The big 24-90 zoom is big, but not much bigger than the 180/2.8 I often walk around with.
• Expecting all mirrorless, FF cameras to be ultra-compacts isn't realistic. Not even the Sony A7 is that.

Beyond that, I think Leica has produced a good camera in the SL that will work with my R lenses very nicely, much better than the A7 did even. I have little to no interest in zoom lenses; never have but for a couple of exceptions, they're always bulkier and heavier than I like. The price is high, but no higher than what I'm willing to spend on an M body, so that's a toss up.

Presuming I'll buy one of these at some point, I can sell off the Nikon gear to help fund the purchase. Probably won't since I can afford to keep both, and I like my old Nikkors a lot too.

Whether anyone else likes or wants the SL, or not, is fine by me. Same goes for the Sony things and the Fuji things. It just would be nice to have a conversation about the camera without all the ridiculous hyperbole and obviously incorrect information spoken as gospel.

G

 

[Lss]

As there is no scale in this photo other than the known sizes of both the small and large Apple Watches, the SL is clearly HUGE!!!

No, it really isn't. I acknowledge this is not meant to be a constructive discussion, but we can at least pretend. It's slightly larger than the M. If you wanted a Q with a lens mount, the SL is obviously larger than that. But it isn't a huge camera in reality. It isn't a small one either. A Sony A7 series camera is pretty small, an RX1 is very small.

The native lenses are a different matter. They are large, and while they are reasonably similar in size vs. DSLR competition that this system is said to go against, they show no real size advantage, which is probably something many people expect from a mirrorless Leica (valid or not). These lenses are said to be free of compromise (and while this does not seem to apply when it comes to constant aperture!), they may show quality that fits the size. I guess the jury is still out on that one, especially for the tele zoom and the Summilux.

 

[jsrockit]

My points are:

[*]The SL body is sort of an average SLR size and weight.
[*]The big 24-90 zoom is big, but not much bigger than the 180/2.8 I often walk around with.
[*]Expecting all mirrorless, FF cameras to be ultra-compacts isn't realistic. Not even the Sony A7 is that.

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. We get it, you love it and will defend it all day long. Conversely, there are those that are going to hate the size because they like small cameras.

 

[rbelyell]

if you want to 'pretend' at being constructive, please constructively point out the next biggest mirrorless camera by any manufacturer, compare it to the SL, and then tell us what in your opinion would fit your personal definition of 'much larger' than any other mirrorless. that would be constructive as it would be based on fact vs 'no it isnt/yes it is'.

then you could constuctively attach the monstrous ff af vario elmarit to the SL, attach the closest native normal zoom to the mirrorlees you chose above, then try to restate your position without laughing too hard.

please stop telling people WHAT WE CAN CLEARLY SEE, this kit is huge! that fact may not matter to you. GREAT! more power to you, and use it in good health. i look forward to the images. but dont be the guy caught in bed naked with another woman who asks his wife 'who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes'?

and re what shouldve been 'reasonable expectations' for this product, lets keep in mind the entire reason for the invention of mirrorless cameras was to replace HUGE DSLRs! the major selling point of sonys a7 ff mirrorless line is that IT CAN REPLACE HUGE DSLRs! so tell me again why it was unreasonable to expect leica to not RECREATE A HUGE DSLR utilizing mirrorless technology?

 

[f16sunshine]

and re what shouldve been 'reasonable expectations' for this product, lets keep in mind the entire reason for the invention of mirrorless cameras was to replace HUGE DSLRs! the major selling point of sonys a7 ff mirrorless line is that IT CAN REPLACE HUGE DSLRs! so tell me again why it was unreasonable to expect leica to not RECREATE A HUGE DSLR utilizing mirrorless technology?

I think you may be incorrect here Tony.

One byproduct of mirrorless technology was the ability to have a shorter register distance and yes, the possibiility of smaller cameras overall.

Those small cameras have great shortcomings in some situations.
They are underpowered and slow. Read around the web all the complaints of lag and poor evf reponse and resolution not to mention shot count vs battery life.
Something has to give to improve those areas. Size is that something.
In order to have a feature, It has to fit in th package.
So far smaller mirrorless options have been quite hampered in performance compared to their DSLR brothers.

This Camera seems to think outside of the box of previous mirrorless cameras. Just read the spec sheet. It's a speed demon with a super hi-res evf.
I think there is a lot to be said for offering something we are not already being offered.
Leica is a premium brand and therefore quite spend. Let's see what voice other manufaturers use to respond to this offering.
It's an excellent springboard. I hope other manufacturers go out and bounce on it!

 

[fireblade]

People should adjust their expectations and not let a misleading, foreshortened photograph be their guide. If I want a petite, professional quality mirrorless to work with, the Olympus E-M1 is far better at being compact.

G

It's alright Godfrey, some men like their women "fat" some like them "skinny", they all need loving.
Petite is nice though....Oh what a shallow world we live in 😀

 

[JPSuisse]

But on the other hand, what it does offer are the M lenses, which are worshipped by many pros. That capability, combined with the video and other techie features will be enough.

All the "it's ugly" comments make me wonder if these critics have done anything but look at the midget model holding it. That image is pure bashing, on purpose, it should be obvious.

A careful look will reveal an exquisite build, the Sony is a toy in comparison, though those straight line have killed ergos. Ming's hand hurt in a short time with the big zoom.

Many are mad because it's not they want: small, simple, M-cool and free.

I'll never own one, but I very much admire the thing. 🙂

Good way to sum it all up.

I see it this way too. It's not for me, but I am kind of impressed by it and see certain values in it. The technical specs are impressive.

Now, where is all that Tri-X, I still need to develop... 🙂

 

[Lss]

if you want to 'pretend' at being constructive, please constructively point out the next biggest mirrorless camera by any manufacturer, compare it to the SL, and then tell us what in your opinion would fit your personal definition of 'much larger' than any other mirrorless. that would be constructive as it would be based on fact vs 'no it isnt/yes it is'.

By choice of words, this outburst is clearly aimed at me. As I already said above, the camera is slightly larger than the M. You can look up the dimensions of these two cameras, and see the facts for yourself. Whatever is my personal definition of "much larger" is obviously subjective. But it is based on facts and my experience in using several cameras. One of the first things after I read about this new camera was to check the specified dimensions against cameras I use or consider getting. It wasn't a complicated task.

I also said rather clearly above that the native SL lenses in fact are large. I have elsewhere further stated that the SL is significantly heavier than I had hoped for and I am not personally happy about that.

If you have this much issue with me and this much difficulty in reading my posts, I suggest you add me to your ignore list. I don't see how to help you otherwise.

 

[Mike Fish]

lets keep in mind the entire reason for the invention of mirrorless cameras was to replace HUGE DSLRs!

And all this time I thought the reasons might possibly include the advantages of removing the mirror, the complexity, and the noise. And maybe showing the actual scene more accurately including exposure, depth of field, etc.

Don't I feel foolish now.

 

[rbelyell]

thats an intersting point andy. tbh, i really had never gotten the undercurrent of dissatisfaction with mirrorless you discussed, but maybe its there. i just hear a lot of folks loving on their a7s. tbh again, i had no such issues with the rx1, except for battery life, but performance wise it was a beast without being a monster. ):

and even with battery life, that stinks with many cameras, including my rd1. its great though with mirrorless m4/3. so im not so sure size is the issue. but whatever.

and its totally understandable that you actually want a big camera or that godfrey would think this was a godsend for R glass. honestly, those reasons, or no reason, to like this is fine with me. but telling people they dont see what they see, or that size shouldnt matter to lots of folks, or that if it does this isnt a really big boy, or showing some guy shooting a rf lens to prove that elmarit isnt a lead pipe, that just gets my hackels up.

 

[xayraa33]

Let's just have a more straight forward comparison. No mirrorless EVF camera to SLR or to RF.

source: http://www.photographyblog.com/news/leica_sl_vs_sony_a7r_ii_side_by_side_comparison/

The lenses comparison is another matter...

That new Leica is big Cal, but it is not big enough.

 

[JPSuisse]

Actually, my first thought when I saw the cut-away (not sure where) showing an M-lens with the M-adapter with the sensor in the background was that "maybe the next M-body might be shutterless as well with this technology."

This would then put a digital M on par with the quiteness of my MPs. I just haven't seen a big enough incremental improvement to the M8s to justify taking the plunge to another digital M. Yes, yes, I know the M8 is quirky but I still use it as much as my MPs.

In sum, all the technology and interchangeability packed in this new body bodes well for the next digital M too! (Even though I don't want film and video.)

 

[giganova]

Let's just have a more straight forward comparison. No mirrorless EVF camera to SLR or to RF.

Thank you for putting the (intentionally by many!) misleading discussion about the "enormous" camera size to rest.