rbelyell
Well-known
no doubt all thise things are true. i was taught more than one thing can be true at the same time, and if you take a look at how mirrorless was marketed, and how the a7 was marketed, i thought both what i said and what you said coexisted as true. i dont feel foolish.
Mike Fish
Mike in Sacramento
MCTuomey
Mentor
The obvious question is whether folks with in-use inventories of M or R glass will turn away from their current M digital, Sony, or other mirrorless body-based solutions for using that fine glass to the SL. And the second question might be whether folks will turn away from Sony/Fuji/Oly native AF implementations and spend the considerable admission price difference to be on an AF-capable Leica system with native SL lenses.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Oh man. Ok, speaking only for myself,... I sure like the small excellent fuji af lenses (at any price).
It's going to take a tremendous change of need in my photography to make a change of digital systems.
I wish for a body with this performance without any doubt but, it's a need for only 5-10% of my projects.
Given good lenses and sensor, Most of the time a much less muscular camera does the job.
A person like me is not the Leica target.
rbelyell
Well-known
those are interesting points bill. most interesting is you did not mention anyone turning away from CaNikon. nothing is 100% but death, imo folks choosing M, fuji, sony and especially oly have made a size choice that they are not likely to revisit with this product. the reason i say this with some confidence is this product has more or less already existed in CaNikon and these buyers already eschewed those products. no doubt about it corvette owners, size matters!
rbelyell
Well-known
calm down there sonny. a little hyperbole never hurt anyone.
C Jensen
Member
To be fair, what does it look like in a side by side photo with a Fuji 690 GW?
rbelyell
Well-known
with the lens released yesterday, it trounces that fuji, beats it to a pulp. ):
BlackXList
Well-known
I've been pondering the user experience, and no wheel on the back means that Exposure Comp is likely to be a fiddle to adjust on the fly, especially without taking your eye away from the EVF.
It's those kinds of ergonomics decisions which will affect whether it's taken up by the pro market or not.
It's those kinds of ergonomics decisions which will affect whether it's taken up by the pro market or not.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
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
Godfrey
somewhat colored
rbelyell
Well-known
godfrey i read your analysis and find it very thoughtful and logical. except leicas stated purpose is to redefine digital autofocus, thus the three behemouth 82mm round af lenses. certainly, a side benefit may accrue manually focusing R lens users, but deciding thats the main thrust of this 'innovative autofocus system' is directly at odds with what theyre saying and seems at odds with the af logic of it all, as well as pretty much every other commentator whose spoken on this.
once we question that premise and replace it with leicas public premise of creating a state of the art af system, well, then everything just really breaks down. because then we have to consider these ungainly, unsightly, unwieldy lenses, which when combined with your admittedly 'medium format' sized camera, seems less state of the art than bad art.
once we question that premise and replace it with leicas public premise of creating a state of the art af system, well, then everything just really breaks down. because then we have to consider these ungainly, unsightly, unwieldy lenses, which when combined with your admittedly 'medium format' sized camera, seems less state of the art than bad art.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have R, M, Micro-FourThirds, and Nikon SLR systems at present. I already sold off my Sony kit.
Were I to obtain an SL body tomorrow, I'd sell off the entire mFT kit first; it's mostly redundant already. I'd trim down my M kit somewhat to one film and one digital body and keep the 24/35/50/75/90/135 RF lenses.
Then I'd have to work out some decisions. Stick with the R lenses as my mainstay for the SL is a given. Currently, that's 19/24/35/50/90/135/180 with two doublings. I like AF, but it's not a priority for me. So it is likely the best choice to wait for the 90-250 zoom for when the extra reach and OIS would be most useful. Hold onto one Leicaflex SL body, sell the others.
Then work out what I want to keep in Nikon. Mm. That's currently 18/25-50/28/35af/50/50af/55micro/85/105micro/180af ... I could just sell all but the micros, and pick up the R 60/100 micros. I'd have to think on that.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Absolutely not. The reason for creating TTL electronic imaging systems was to provide a better viewfinder as replacement for sub-35mm SLR viewfinders, which are compromised and dim due to the lack of focusing screen area.
35mm SLRs are very well worked out with efficient, clean viewfinders. Moving from an optical reflex to EVF viewfinder is a big innovation, done for the secondary advantages of the EVF over optical viewfinders.
Changing the size of the body, however, means nothing with respect to the size of lenses needed for the 35mm format. It is the lenses that make FF cameras bulky, and modern, optimized lenses for digital sensors with image stabilization, etc built into them are usually large and complex devices.
G
MCTuomey
Mentor
I feel the same. My Fuji X gear is good enough, most of the time, most places. I think the SL is brlliant, but unnecessary for me as well.
MCTuomey
Mentor
I have R, M, Micro-FourThirds, and Nikon SLR systems at present. I already sold off my Sony kit.
Were I to obtain an SL body tomorrow, I'd sell off the entire mFT kit first; it's mostly redundant already. I'd trim down my M kit somewhat to one film and one digital body and keep the 24/35/50/75/90/135 RF lenses.
Then I'd have to work out some decisions. Stick with the R lenses as my mainstay for the SL is a given. Currently, that's 19/24/35/50/90/135/180 with two doublings. I like AF, but it's not a priority for me. So it is likely the best choice to wait for the 90-250 zoom for when the extra reach and OIS would be most useful. Hold onto one Leicaflex SL body, sell the others.
Then work out what I want to keep in Nikon. Mm. That's currently 18/25-50/28/35af/50/50af/55micro/85/105micro/180af ... I could just sell all but the micros, and pick up the R 60/100 micros. I'd have to think on that.
G
Godfrey, I can see why the SL is in your sights down the road. Happy dance time!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Thank you for the compliment.
I don't know what "digital AF" is.
Leica's stated purpose is to provide state of the art AF as well as the best lens performance possible. The new lenses are in support of that goal. However, I don't think it's possible to deny their interest in providing the many R system customers a suitable platform for what amounts to many thousands of dollars worth of excellent lenses, never mind the M system customers too. Leica has always done its best for their customers and respected their lens investments as the real cement of the relationship. I am absolutely sure that Leica presumes a large portion of the initial SL sales will go to people who already have Leica M and R equipment and that they will be judging it as a body based on using their existing lenses first and foremost.
The AF lens designs being developed are very complex with many elements. Such lens designs need strong mounts and very accurate, fast servomotors to meet the goals of "state of the art AF" as well as Leica's durability and robustness standards. Since they're also incorporating OIS into these lenses, that takes yet more room and also benefits from the robust mounts.
Are they too big? Well, they're certainly larger than I would prefer, but too big is a value judgement. The stated size of the 24-90/2.8-4 is 88x138 mm, 1140kg; it has 18 elements in 15 groups and takes the 82mm filter size.
- My Nikon 180/2.8 ED-IF AF-D is 79x144mm, 760g with 8 elements in 6 groups, and no OIS. I don't find it difficult to manage at all, it's a full handful to hold but isn't outrageously too thick to grip easily. I'd have no difficulty with another 10mm diameter. It, along with a D750 body, slips nicely into a Domke F5xb, along with a 35 or 50mm lens too, so I don't really feel it is oversize at all.
- A closer match to the SL lens is the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR AF-S, which comes in at 84x104mm, 710g, and takes a 77mm filter (17 elements in 13 groups). It's obviously much more lightly built at 430g lighter (almost a pound), but otherwise seems quite similar. (Oh yes, remember you have to factor in another inch for lens length between the SL lens and a DSLR lens; having no mirror box takes 20+ mm out out of the body for mount registration, but it has to go somewhere. ;-)
All together, however, the SL wasn't designed for compactness and light weight; it was designed for performance and durability. The story is the same for its lenses. They're big, but not inhumanly so.
G
afterthought:
The Leica SL is only the second "mirrorless" FF available. It will be interesting to see what Nikon and Canon offer if (when...) they decide to move from their all SLR systems to a modern EVF camera. I'm sure it will happen, the questions are when and what they'll produce.
ajramirez
Established
Does anybody know if the M adapter (which I understand reads the 6 bit code) will trigger lens profiles in the SL as it does in the digital M bodies? I wonder if it is possible for Leica to optimise the sensor for M lenses and also for lenses designed for a longer flange distance.
If if plays nice with M lenses, it could be a winner.
If if plays nice with M lenses, it could be a winner.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
According to Jono Slack's article (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-news/2015/10/leica-sl-test-jono/), the M adapter triggers M-mount lens profiles and the R Adapter L does the same for R-mount lenses.
It's just manipulation of the captured data to suit a calibration spec. While not exactly simple, it's quite doable with today's compute power, even in embedded devices.
G
giganova
Well-known
I wonder whether the electronic viewfinder displays all the information film makers have been used to for years (e.g., zebra, peaking, focus areas, histogram, etc).
Edit: I just looked it up and it seems to have all of the above and more. Focus peaking and zebra will be nice!
Edit: I just looked it up and it seems to have all of the above and more. Focus peaking and zebra will be nice!