Jump to content

Leica SL or Sony aR7II ?


ECohen

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica SL or Sony aR7II ?
 

I'm an M user and occasionally need Zooms and AF. I want to get rid of my Nikon's for something lighter and *less menu heavy.

You all own the SL and are pretty technical folks....How about some advice, please? Honestly I cant see the advantage of buying the SL,the cost, the weight , slower lenses. I do love my M system but I don't see how the Leica SL is the better mirrorless camera to the Sony?

It would be helpful if you all could give me some sound reasons to go with the SL over the Sony A7 (not sure which version)?
 

What am I missing, that Leica wants me to see?

Is it the quality of the Leica lenses over Zeiss?  Is it that Leica as a camera company sees and understands my needs as a photographer better than Sony?
 

In full disclosure I have not physically seen an SL.....a trip the the Leica store is on my list.

*Whats keeping me from the Sony is the repulsive layers and layers of menus.

 

Any and all advice is welcome.

Thank You in advance for your kindness
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never had a Sony A7, just handled one in a shop. All I can say is that the SL is the best Leica I have ever owned and I have owned them since 1985. Of course the SL is more expensive that a Sony so if the cost is not an issue, I feel that you will wish you had bought the SL if you initially buy the A7. Plus you can use your M lens array on the SL with an adapter. They are really easy to focus on the SL with just a little practice.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once I got the SL I never used my A7RII or A7S again. Sold them without an ounce of regret, along with an S, M and Q. SL is a true all-rounder with higher image quality, better build, better low light and handles all the old R and M lenses beautifully. Processing time is cut in half with the SL compared to all the work it took to coax Sony files into a Leica look. Totally agree with Bill W, "best Leica" and best camera I've used in 10 years.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, i has a7ii for a year and a7rii for a year before i found SL.

A7rii have the advantage having 42mp. It is very good for landscape i love the image quality. And dynamic range. And i was using voigtlander lenses since the beginning. I absolutely love it.

But after years using sony, i realize that every picture i have to edit quite heavily in lightroom, i never like the out of camera result. Thats the first major problem.

The second is, built quality. Its a little bit worrying me that the screw on the outer body is changing color. This is something that i cannot sleep with. I read in a lot of forum the after sales service is not good.

With only that 2 reason, i was dare my self to change to SL system. I sold everybit of my sony system. Including some of my lens to fund the SL and 24-90mm.

After months using the SL, i never regret 1 bit. I never missed the 5 axis stabilizer, the 42mp, or even the size.

 

The image quality on the SL is just magnificent, it is far2 superior than sony. Even for landscape, the color, the sharpness, its just different.

 

Moving from sony to SL is just one day learning. It is soo easy to use. The menu is so simple on the SL.

 

Size wise, i feel using the SL is more comfy than the a7rii. You must thinking i'm crazy right?

Let me explain, yes it is heavy, but i have a big hand. With sony, my pinky finger is loose. So i only have 3 finger gripped on the front and a thumb on the back. When i press the shutter, i only holding with 2 finger on the front. 1 finger on the top/shutter. This makes me very tired using it eventhough it is lighter.

With SL i have full grip.

 

Hmmm what else. Ohh price wise.

I think its worth every penny. With the built quality and the image quality like that, i can live with this camera for at least 3 years and i will upgrade to SL mark ii.

 

No matter zeiss, voigtlander, leica lenses. Its just a matter of taste, but with SL, it boost the image like 3 times better than sony. I like nikon IQ way better OOC than sony.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked with a Sony A7 for a year and a half. Disliked it every inch of the way: cheaply made, clunky shutter, poor controls, and a menu mess. I sold it after I bought my M-P ... the M-P even with its less capable EVF was a better mirrorless camera than the A7. Then I acquired the SL and that was the end of my search for the right mirrorless camera. 

 

The SL is the best (and only) pro-grade FF mirrorless camera on the market. Once I had it, I stopped using my Nikon D750 and Olympus E-M1 systems. They're for sale now, I'll never touch them again. Although I used several of the Sony/Zeiss lenses when I had the A7, I never bought any of them ... none worked as well as the R lenses adapted to that body did. The SL used with the same R and M lenses that I used to use on the Sony A7 produces far superior photographs.

 

The SL has the best ergonomics, the most sensible menus, an excellent sensor, the best viewfinder, incredible responsiveness and speed, and extreme versatility. The SL dedicated zooms are big but spectacular performers ... they outperform most high end prime lenses. 

 

This is a camera that you buy and use, not wait for the next better one to show up to fix some irritating deficiency. You use it for a LONG time. Mine is a year and a half old, 10-12 thousand pictures down, and feels like new still. I imagine it will do me fine for about a decade or so. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Leica SL or Sony aR7II ?

 

I'm an M user and occasionally need Zooms and AF. I want to get rid of my Nikon's for something lighter and *less menu heavy.

You all own the SL and are pretty technical folks....How about some advice, please? Honestly I cant see the advantage of buying the SL,the cost, the weight , slower lenses. I do love my M system but I don't see how the Leica SL is the better mirrorless camera to the Sony?

 

It would be helpful if you all could give me some sound reasons to go with the SL over the Sony A7 (not sure which version)?

 

What am I missing, that Leica wants me to see?

Is it the quality of the Leica lenses over Zeiss?  Is it that Leica as a camera company sees and understands my needs as a photographer better than Sony?

 

In full disclosure I have not physically seen an SL.....a trip the the Leica store is on my list.

*Whats keeping me from the Sony is the repulsive layers and layers of menus.

 

Any and all advice is welcome.

Thank You in advance for your kindness

 

 

 

I had Sony A7II and A7s about1,5 years ago and while it is not a bad camera I much prefer the SL which I have owned for over 1 year now.

What you gain over the A7 is:

- M lenses work much better on the SL

- much much better user interface IMO, physical and also software/menues

- better viewfinder (that is the first EVF where I am not missing a OVF often)

- better native lenses (even though very few available so far)

- more solid/ better weather sealing

- I prefer the IQ / colors from Leica as well

 

For the A7 I see also some advantages:

-lower prices

-higher resolution

-more native lenses available

 

For me the SL clearly wins, besides its high price tags. I also like to have the same menu logic in several camera systems (M,SL,S)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I currently have both the Sony A7rII and the SL. I almost never use the Sony anymore. Its advantages are that

it is much lighter than the Leica, has a wonderful 42meg sensor and a tilting rear screen. Its disadvantages

are that it has absolutely miserable battery life, the buttons are tiny with very little logic to their layout.

The menu system was designed by someone who never took a photograph. It is confusing even after months of use.

Finally, the viewer, while good, is nowhere near as good as the EVF on the Leica.

 

One could be very happy with either one (I am assuming that money is not a deciding factor) but having used Leicas

for 20 years before I got the Sony I am much more comfortable with the Leica in actual use. I would prefer that

Leica put a 40+ meg sensor on it but that would also create issues. The camera would probably slow down and the

files would be huge but it would give greater flexibility to crop in post processing. However, since I don't print

larger than 16" I have not really missed the larger sensor in actual practice. Moire has almost never been an issue

in my type of shooting but I have seen examples of shots where a 40+ sensor would have dealt with moire (bird

feathers for example) but it has not been a problem for me.

 

I also had a complete Nikon system that was really excellent but I sold it off to help pay for the Leica. In

retrospect, the only thing I really miss from the Nikon system is their fabulous flash coordination that Leica

cannot match.

 

The bottom line is that of all the camera systems that I have used, I am most comfortable with using the Leicas and

I love the pictures that the camera generates.

 

Mark (East Lansing, Michigan)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once I got the SL I never used my A7RII or A7S again. Sold them without an ounce of regret, along with an S, M and Q. SL is a true all-rounder with higher image quality, better build, better low light and handles all the old R and M lenses beautifully. Processing time is cut in half with the SL compared to all the work it took to coax Sony files into a Leica look. Totally agree with Bill W, "best Leica" and best camera I've used in 10 years.

 Can't really add to what Cira says..... and now have a safe full of Leica cameras I have rarely used in the last year ..... M240, MM, T & Q, plus others I have sold. 

 

If you are not using a camera to make yourself money then it comes down completely to whether you enjoy using it or not. If you don't then you will either never pick it up and use it or be constantly irritated by the things you don't like.

 

My current general rule of thumb ...... which I have ignored in the past at great financial cost ......  is that if I find things that annoy or perplex me in the first few minutes of handling then I will NEVER learn to live with it, no wonder how perfect the ultimate images. I hated the A7rII almost from the moment I took it out of the box and despite trying intermittently over a month I gave up and some lucky chap in Portugal got one cheap on eBay. So much for buying from others reviews. So much for technical specifications. 

 

Some cameras you just pick up and think 'yes, this is for me' ..... and you will rarely be wrong. The more hand-wringing and dithering, the more I would be wary. The most expensive camera is the one you never pick up when you leave the house. 

 

10 minutes with an SL and 24-90 will tell you all you need to know. 

Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica SL or Sony aR7II ?

 

I'm an M user and occasionally need Zooms and AF. I want to get rid of my Nikon's for something lighter and *less menu heavy.

 

Sony aR7II : lighter

 

Leica SL : less menu heavy.

 

Both have AF and Zoom.

 

I am sure you know none of them will fulfill all of your criterias.

 

It now depends of the criteria you are ready to let go.

 

You may finally settle with a Fuji or a 4/3 camera for your occasional need of Zooms and AF.

 

They both accept M lenses, even if they are certainly not the best solution for that.

 

Or you will decide to keep a Nikon and two zooms.

Edited by Leicaiste
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The newest collection of Omega Watches are technically better than the Rolex Watches, but when we read the reviews, we discovered that they do their work better and the experience to have one is... very much superior!

 

I have the Sony a7R II with almost all the Zeiss Native Lens, but I am buying one Leica SL too.

 

One of the main advantage of the Sony a7R II is the smaller size, but then I discovered that the Sony G Master 24-70 Lens have exactly the same size of the Leica SL 24-90 Lens!!

And if we want portability we can use the Leica SL with its smaller but still amazing lens: SL Summilux 28/1.7 and call it as... Leica Q.

 

I read a review from a Sony a7R II's photographer who rented a Leica SL just to talk about all the technical disadvantages about the Leica comparing to his Sony!

But when the time to deliver the Leica SL arrived, he did it with tears in the eyes.

 

I have to tell you too that for my decision to buy my SL, I was helped from the Japan's earthquake last year that delayed the appearence of the AMAZING Sony a7r III until - maybe - the end of this year.

 

I know that I will thank God for this too.

 

The only thing I am sure will miss, when using the SL, is the 42 MP from Sony that is very, very comfortable to have.

 

IMPORTANT:

Run and buy it NOW!

Next month, Sony will reveal the newest... a7 Camera and the a7R III until the end of this year.

So the SL's technical disadvantage will be so high that you will decide to wait for the next generation of the Leica SL in 2 years and - maybe - until there, you can't be alive and will regret for this - forever -... in the hell.

Edited by Lins-Barroso
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sony offer an excellent sensor, but very little regarding user-friendlyness. The menus are notorious.

The SL is the perfect companion to a M (M246). It is an excellent camera for using with manual lenses (M, R or Zeiss/Contax or whatever you prefer).

I like the colors of the SL much better. The SL with SL 90-280 is simply a highlight. (The best lens I ever used - but not the smallest).

 

I like the size and touch of the SL, others prefer the small body of the Sony. A matter of taste. For me the Sony is too small, especially when using professional lenses of a certain size. (grip not good enough)

 

As it is mainly a matter of taste, give both cameras a try. You will soon notice the differences, and after a few hours will easily be able to make a decision.

 

I use the SL since more than a year. I was reluctant to buy it - I thought I had already everything I needed. But I wanted to use my Apo Macro Elmarit 100 again on a Leica camera. (On the Canon 5Ds I was not so happy.) The SL is the best camera for macro I know (quick and high-res EVF, well usable with glasses).

Despite the large amount I did not regret the decision a single moment.

Edited by steppenw0lf
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i have both SL and A7rii. And to be completely honest, i still ask myself what the "f" that i was doing when I got the SL and 24-90. As of now, i still don't have the answer. I guess i've heard so much about the "red dot" and now, i'm a "red dot" member and it kinda like.."ugh...it just another tool" :) The SL haven't sweep my feet off yet. The SL haven't make me scream OMG..this is what i'm missing ..

 

On serious note, A7rii offer way more lens (native lens ) and sigma MC-11 adapter now is stable, you can pair up lots of Canon/Sigma lens to the A7rii while you only have a few lenses selection for SL.

 

So if you can afford and not make yourself into debt then WHY NOT? you only live one. Enjoy it.

 

sl8.jpg

Edited by AlexP
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like you, I'm an M user, and I have a nice collection of M lenses.

 

After a few years of the M9, I realised that I needed longer reach, possibly AF, and zoom - something more than the M9's strength between 28 & 90mm.  First I tried the NEX-5n, an APS-C camera which behaved reasonably well with M lenses.  It's native zoom was pretty ordinary, and it was kind of ... meh.  I also wanted full frame.  So, when the A7r was released, colour me happy!  Compact, 36MP sensor, takes M lenses! What could be better?  It even had a Zeiss zoom, which wasn't too bad!

 

I took it on a motorbike trip up the eastern USA, and frankly, it drove me nuts.  Forget about using M lenses (okay, I did have the 28 Summicron), battery life was challenging and the menu system incomprehensible.  The output was okay, but there was no pleasure in holding the damn thing, let alone using it.  I ditched it as soon as I got back to New Zealand.

 

Then the A7rII came along, and apparently the menus had been improved and the corner performance with M wides also improved, so I thought maybe, give it another go ... then a helpful person said hold off for a week or two, Leica is coming up with something you've been asking for for a while; and out came the SL!  Shallower menus, easier to hold, better battery and plays nice with M and R lenses; and the "kit" lens is fantastic.  As an M user, what's not to like?

 

A7rII?  Forget it.  By the time you've got it to work the way you want to, there will be an A7rIII, and by the time you'e sold off your A7rII, there will be an A7rIV - and all will have the same rubbish menu system and a design approach that has nothing to do with photography.  If you get Leica, get the SL!

 

Cheers

John

Edited by IkarusJohn
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Leica for its quality, simplicity and enduring design principles.  I look at the photo above showing the back of the SL vs the Sony and the answer to why I have a Leica are all there!  Or in the case of why you want a Leica, are more accurately not there.  Which of the two looks more intuitive and easy to drive, so you can focus your energies on your art and not the camera in your hand?

 

I remember a business meeting I was in once and after being told in great detail and complexity how one country managed their macro policy, my manager in response answered "in our country we eat with a knife and fork".    

 

Best of luck with your deliberations

 

M  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I currently have SL and M240 and for a while had the Sony A7R. I sold the A7R after a few months and would not go back to it. I liked the sensor, but did not like the overall experience of using it, which I found fiddly and focus peaking with an M lens I just did not get the hang off and always had to zoom in, which made the whole process of taking a shot too convoluted for me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For most of January I used the SL + 90-280 APO along with the Sony a7rii + Leica 280/4 APO after using the Sony a7II + 280/4 APO for a little over a year.  Although I agree with all the praise for the SL in the above posts, I kept the Sony & sent the SL and its 90-280 back to the dealer.  Here's why:

 

Both of these lenses are fabulous; the 90-280 APO stands out in particular for its size, weight and performance very comparable to the 280/4 APO while adding zoom, AF and optical stabilization.  A very impressive lens.

 

As many have noted the Sony's menus are often inscrutable while the SL's menus hardly need an instruction booklet.  However my use of the cameras pointed out several difference that tipped the balance toward the Sony, primarily with my favored avian subjects.

 

The first and most obvious problem is fine feather detail: a lens like the 90-280 APO with very effective stabilization projects a very detailed image on the sensor and when this is combined with regular fine detail, a Bayer-pattern sensor and no AA filter the result is incurable levels of aliasing and color moire.  This lens would do very well with a higher-resolution sensor.  Much higher. 

 

The next problem is the options for the optical stabilization: either on or off.  The OS system 'automatically detects the difference between panning and inadvertent wobble' (Leica's verbage more or less) but it can't be set to ignore intentional wobble such as when following an erratically-moving subject as many of mine are.  The result is the field of view lags the camera movement, the carefully placed AF focussing point drifts off the subject as the image settles and by the time the image has settled the critter has moved again (the 280/4 APO on the Sony is manual-focus only and unlike the SL the viewfinder will show aliasing and moire, but this can be used to advantage because maximum aliasing = sharpest focus).  For most forms of camera movement the Sony's sensor stabilization isn't as effective as the SL's optical stabilization but unlike the SL it works with all of my lenses in the only mode that matters to me: little vibrations.  Iy even works with my manual-focus 500mm lens.  There's no stabilization of any sort at present on the SL beyond 280mm.  I've found that with fine feather detail the a7rII's higher resolution results in much less aliasing and moire; it's not entirely gone but the vast majority of the time it's manageable.

 

I also don't dive into menus often because I set the camera up for manual everything and leave it there, so the Sony's menus don't bother me often.

 

The final problem with the SL which with any luck will be fixed in a future firmware release is the viewfinder's automatic brightness mode.  Some people like it, I hate it.  It can be set to 'exposure preview mode' instead but only temporarily.  It reverts to 'automatic brightness' after each exposure.

 

So IMHO this is a 'YMMV' choice.  Without modification of the Sony, M lenses users will like the results from the SL better.  Long-lens users like myself will likely find more to like in the Sony than in the SL.  People who wear winter gloves or who change menu settings frequently will find the SL much more to their liking.  YMMV.

Edited by wildlightphoto
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

So much that has already been said, and which I won't repeat, but I to came to the SL from a Sony A7rII and a fairly substantial collection of lenses. I sold everything and just about had enough to buy the SL body and have never remotely regretted it or questioned why I did it.

 

My own personal view is that there are four compelling reasons to buy the SL over the Sony are as follows:

 

1. You can mount M lenses and have perfect results which is also the reason why:

2. Image quality - way better than the A7rII in terms of colour, separation, pop, that lovely film like quality to it etc and all with files that are easy to manage unlike the bloatware you get from the Sony

3. Build quality - my Sony needed a new rear screen after four months because it was delaminating around the whole of the edge of the screen and Sony wouldn't even warranty it. They claimed (or rather the twats that Sony engage to do warranty work because they don't do it themselves) it had been dropped. Really? What and only the edge of the screen has been affected?

4. The EVF, which is a whole order of magnitude better than the Sony and means you really can focus manual M lenses fast and accurarely.

 

I think the bigger question is if you intend to use the honking great AF lenses for the SL, why you would buy that over any other DSLR. My own personal question is whether I should have bought an M body rather than the SL, especially now that the M10 is out and I never shoot video. In truth, I opted for the SL at the time because I knew I could fast focus a manual M lens on it and I wasn't sure I could on an M body but I suspect that this was an unfounded issue.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...