Leica SL

[ianp5a]

This is the bit I don't understand.

My Nikon FG, for example, is the equivalent of FF in terms of "sensor" size. Obviously with the FG the sensor is 35mm film.

It's tiny.

So, what is it about FF digital that they have to be so large, and, if mirrorless, even more so.

I don't know why DSLRs are so much bigger than SLRs. If a roll of film is similar in volume to a battery. But a mirrorless FF needn't be much larger than the Sony A7. But Sony have experience with miniaturisation. And lead in the compactness stakes. But clearly some makers don't care.

Leica need to make a plain, knobless camera to keep to their modern Leica look. Which makes the cameras look bigger than a similar sized camera covered in dials and contours and bumps. If a Leica looked similar to other cameras, people would look closer at the price tag.

 

[owenb]

I don't know why DSLRs are so much bigger than SLRs. If a roll of film is similar in volume to a battery. But a mirrorless FF needn't be much larger than the Sony A7. But Sony have experience with miniaturisation. And lead in the compactness stakes. But clearly some makers don't care.

Leica need to make a plain, knobless camera to keep to their modern Leica look. Which makes the cameras look bigger than a similar sized camera covered in dials and contours and bumps. If a Leica looked similar to other cameras, people would look closer at the price tag.

totally agree tbh... Leicas uniqueness is a big selling point

 

[woof woof]

Personally I think that these days Leica is more of a brand and statement than simply a camera although I accept that it's possible to make a case for the bodies to mount the highly regarded lenses on Camera or designer brand, either way, there are still a lot of nice pictures taken with the gear.

PS. On the size issue, I can understand modern lenses being bigger than film era lenses as we have IS and the need for extra quality to stand up to pixel peeping and whilst the bodies could be smaller there are plenty of people who critisise the smaller bodies such as the A7, now we have a larger body and people complain. You just can't please everyone.

 

[odd jim]

Personally I think that these days Leica is more of a brand and statement than simply a camera although I accept that it's possible to make a case for the bodies to mount the highly regarded lenses on Camera or designer brand, either way, there are still a lot of nice pictures taken with the gear.

PS. On the size issue, I can understand modern lenses being bigger than film era lenses as we have IS and the need for extra quality to stand up to pixel peeping and whilst the bodies could be smaller there are plenty of people who critisise the smaller bodies such as the A7, now we have a larger body and people complain. You just can't please everyone.

It's not quite like that (re the last paragraph).

As I posted a few times, the OP wanted a *small* camera for a walk around, then surprised a few people by then stating he was considering the SL. This is when size came into as its anything but, especially with its native lenses.

But because he is now a Leica convert, as does happen sometimes with this brand, I doubt he'd consider another brand other than Leica, to the extent a completely inappropriate choice might be made. As is quite often the case with Leica fans.

 

[Nod]

It should, perhaps, be pointed out that the OP also uses a Nikon system.

 

[odd jim]

It should, perhaps, be pointed out that the OP also uses a Nikon system.

Yes but stated his preferences in the other threads. Hense the word phrase Leica "convert".

He also stated in the Leica thread he started in 2012 that he's just "switched from Nikon to Leica."

 

[gramps]

Actually he's had a Leica for a very long time.

 

[odd jim]

Actually he's had a Leica for a very long time.

I gathered that.

Doesn't change my point though. He's considering (from the information he gave us at least) an inappropriate choice for a small walk around, on the basis it's got **that** badge on it following on from two threads where he could not be clearer about his love affair with the brand

Personally, before the banter, I was just trying to save him $14,000.

 

[stevelmx5]

Actually he's had a Leica for a very long time.

Reading his website, he bought his first M in 2011/12 after sitting next to someone on a bus that had one.

 

[gramps]

I gathered that.

Doesn't change my point though. He's considering (from the information he gave us at least) an inappropriate choice for a small walk around, on the basis it's got **that** badge on it following on from two threads where he could not be clearer about his love affair with the brand

Can't argue against that ... however he isn't the first and won't be the last to choose a piece of equipment that others view as inappropriate just because it 'takes his fancy' and that regardless of brand

 

[gramps]

Reading his website, he bought his first M in 2011/12 after sitting next to someone on a bus that had one.

and that is important?

 

[odd jim]

Can't argue against that ... however he isn't the first and won't be the last to choose a piece of equipment that others view as inappropriate just because it 'takes his fancy' and that regardless of brand

This is true!

 

[stevelmx5]

and that is important?

Not especially, just something I read on his site.

 

[owenb]

Not especially, just something I read on his site.

Well he obv thinks is important if he has put it on his site then..............

 

[owenb]

anyone with pics of the sl in hands???? I'm interested to see it if is as big as what I remember

 

[gramps]

anyone with pics of the sl in hands???? I'm interested to see it if is as big as what I remember

http://www.camerawest.com/cwblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/closeup3.jpg

 

[owenb]

http://www.camerawest.com/cwblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/closeup3.jpg

thanks mate..... looks the same as a dslr in fairness ;-)

 

[owenb]

wonder if I'm getting confused with the s which is medium format... think I might be although I cant remember trying one of them as they are ££££££££

 

[odd jim]

http://www.camerawest.com/cwblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/closeup3.jpg

...at an angle where you can't see the slab like bulk and possibly the smallest native lens.

The SL was big in my hands and they're pretty average sized. Or maybe they're smaller than I thought, either way it felt heftier than my 6d and very poorly balanced with the kit lens.

 

[odd jim]

...and of course the photos from the DPreview article I already posted;


http://dpreview.com/articles/7448206943/a-lot-to-leica-hands-on-with-the-leica-sl-typ-601

...which is a very thorough review and overview. They describe it as large.

Let's face it, it's large.

 

[odd jim]

wonder if I'm getting confused with the s which is medium format... think I might be although I cant remember trying one of them as they are ££££££££

No, it will be the SL.

It's is big.

With the kit lens it's a beast.

 

[frod]

I don't think it's that big really, the brutalist style just makes you think it's of a different scale:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.496,258.448,624.515,ha,t

I think as other people have mentioned, why is that lens variable aperture. And why is the whole thing hideously expensive given it is not exactly unique or impressive.

 

[stevelmx5]

And why is the whole thing hideously expensive given it is not exactly unique or impressive.

Can you not see that red dot? I fully agree that I'm not the target market but I'd like to think that even if I could drop this amount of money on a relatively average system, the photographer in me would object.

 

[frod]

http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.495,ha,t

lol

 

[odd jim]

http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.495,ha,t

lol

 

[frod]

somethingsomething pleased to see you

 

[gramps]

I've got a D7200 ... looks big with the 500 f4 on it!

 

[odd jim]

I've got a D7200 ... looks big with the 500 f4 on it!

So does my 6d with my Sigma 150-600.

But this is only a variable aperture 280mm lens!

I'd love to see what their really long lenses might look like

 

[frod]

So does my 6d with my Sigma 150-600.

But this is only a variable aperture 280mm lens!

I'd love to see what their really long lenses might look like

I'd love to see what it would cost

 

[gramps]

It's all relative ... Leica has a tremendous following and loads of people like designer goods.
Thousands have put money down on Nikon D500's & D5's without ever having laid eye or hand on them and such will be the case ad nauseum.
I wonder how much inverted snobbery bears on the issue.

 

[odd jim]

It's all relative ... Leica has a tremendous following and loads of people like designer goods.
Thousands have put money down on Nikon D500's & D5's without ever having laid eye or hand on them and such will be the case ad nauseum.
I wonder how much inverted snobbery bears on the issue.

It's not inverted snobbery, that's just silly.

It's common sense.

 

[odd jim]

I'd love to see what it would cost

You'd need a small mortgage.

The 90-280 is $6729 at present pre order prices.

 

[gramps]

It's not inverted snobbery, that's just silly.

It's common sense.

Oh come on ... read the 3 threads, you're kidding right?

 

[odd jim]

Oh come on ... read the 3 threads, you're kidding right?

I have read them, and contributed to them all? Not sure what you mean?

Are you saying the opinion is based on an irrational dislike for all things Leica? That's not true, I actually quite like their products! They're just overpriced and underwhelming in performance. And the company has started to parody themselves, I mean, the cheap pens and key rings hyper priced up because they have the logo on? And the re badged Nissin flash gun, WTF is that about?

I'll go on to say the SL has some rather nice things about it. It's just not small. Or worth a third of its asking price.

 

[frod]

I've got no problem with it being considered inverse snobbery. It's just that they tried to emulate the whole minimalism style and ended up with something looking more like it was an apprentice designers outtake. I'm quite happy to appreciate the style and desirability of most Leica stuff. They just didn't pull it off this time so the price looks rather ridiculous.

 

[magicolor1]

Ok it's not small - I think we've established that. Can we move on now? This has got very boring and repetitive...

 

[frod]

Ok it's not small - I think we've established that. Can we move on now? This has got very boring and repetitive...

that's half of the problem though, there is little else to talk about; it's just an unremarkable device.

 

[odd jim]

Ok it's not small - I think we've established that. Can we move on now? This has got very boring and repetitive...

What would you like to discuss now?

If it's boring you, there are far more interesting threads available.

 

[gramps]

I have read them, and contributed to them all? Not sure what you mean?

Are you saying the opinion is based on an irrational dislike for all things Leica? That's not true, I actually quite like their products! They're just overpriced an underwhelming in performance.

I'll go on to say the SL has some rather nice things about it. It's just not small. Or worth a third of its asking price.

Firstly I'm not aiming the comment at any one individual ... but for what it's worth I've seen some of Neil's work with his Leica, some of it is rubbish but some (like his buffalo cart races) is superb. He works on a rig in some parts of the world that I don't think I would want to work and presumably he gets paid a fair wedge for the privilege. He likes to spend his money on the things he enjoys and on things that the average 'Joe' maybe can't afford and that's entirely his prerogative but clearly detectable that some don't like that, he can take people's advice or leave it ... simples.

 

[woof woof]

Just on buying Leica after sitting next to someone on a bus... I once met a woman at a train station. I wonder which turned out to be the most expensive