Should I get the SL?

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

Iam looking to shoot some portraits and street.

 

Thank you in advance.

 

 

if you would have said:

 

"I am looking to shoot portraits and some street" I would have said, go for the SL. 

 

But you have the Q now. One of my best early portraits was made with a 28, it was by coincidence because I had nothing else with me. If I had a socalled portrait lens with me, I wouldn't have discovered that wide-angles add context to the portrait

[Adam]

Hi friends from different parts of the world with same interest.

Iam actually very new to Leica and just bought my first Leica Q a week ago.

Bought it out twice to shoot and love the way the camera/lens renders the images especially the colours and smooth bokeh and also the touch AF feature.

Iam thinking of getting the SL too but need further advices from gurus to help me out.

 

Should I get the SL pair with the 24-90mm while keeping my Q?

How is the performance of this lens considering its does not has constant aperture which seems to not getting my attention much but I would like to use the AF on SL?

 

or Should I get the SL pair with the 35 Summilux FLE while ditching my Q considering the FL are very close?

Do u guys think getting the SL but not able to use the AF felt like not maximising the SL potential?

 

Iam looking to shoot some portraits and street.

 

Thank you in advance.

 

I would say No.

 

For me, a weather sealed, AF 280 zoom lens compatible camera is overkill for street and portrait.

 

You have a Q, its excellent for street and fast moving targets. It is small and portable. Fast AF. If you would like/prefer to use a 35 summilux FLE, get a mint M. They are 'cheap' now.  There is no AF with the summilux anyway. The SL shines with SL lens, the M shines with M lens, especially the wide ones.

 

If you hate rangefinder focusing, but don't mind contrast manual focus, wait for the new M. It will definitely have an upgraded EVF, be it integrated or an add on. Manual contrast focus will be probably as good on the new M as is now on the SL. 

 

If you prefer/need AF, then I would get an SL 24-90, and  ditch the Q, provided portability is not crucial. I would use the money to get an additional lens for the SL.  I would get a nice 50 summilux for static portraits where AF is not crucial, or wait for the AF SL version, if you do not mind carrying a heavier lens.

 

My two cents...

[Guest VVJ]

Could you produce 80-90% of your images with the Q?

 

If you can the answer is probably no...

 

Get a Leica T with the standard zoom instead, you will save a lot of money, use that money to go places and take pictures with your Leica Q.

[turbonetics]

I would say No.

 

For me, a weather sealed, AF 280 zoom lens compatible camera is overkill for street and portrait.

 

You have a Q, its excellent for street and fast moving targets. It is small and portable. Fast AF. If you would like/prefer to use a 35 summilux FLE, get a mint M. They are 'cheap' now.  There is no AF with the summilux anyway. The SL shines with SL lens, the M shines with M lens, especially the wide ones.

 

If you hate rangefinder focusing, but don't mind contrast manual focus, wait for the new M. It will definitely have an upgraded EVF, be it integrated or an add on. Manual contrast focus will be probably as good on the new M as is now on the SL. 

 

If you prefer/need AF, then I would get an SL 24-90, and  ditch the Q, provided portability is not crucial. I would use the money to get an additional lens for the SL.  I would get a nice 50 summilux for static portraits where AF is not crucial, or wait for the AF SL version, if you do not mind carrying a heavier lens.

 

My two cents...

 

 

Thanks...I like your sentence "M Lens shines on M and SL lens shines on SL."

And thanks to all for the replies.

I have actually ordered the SL and will be receiving on Thur or Fri. Currently just acquired a used 50Lux and Iam looking forward to use them.

SL seems to be a flexible camera where I could mount any lens to it, so I think I love the versatility in this aspect.

 

[turbonetics]

Could you produce 80-90% of your images with the Q?

 

If you can the answer is probably no...

 

Get a Leica T with the standard zoom instead, you will save a lot of money, use that money to go places and take pictures with your Leica Q.

 

Thanks for the advice.

Actually I still prefer FF to any crop sensor.

[TRIago]

I'd use only the Q, since you already have it. Then by the time it stops working, we'd have the 3rd or 4th (at least) generation of the SL, which will be a much better camera. Then I'd buy that one. My POV, of course.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[meerec]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why wait? ... I always buy at the beginning of the cycle to enjoy it early and for much longer. I've had my SL since beginning of December 2015 and never looked back. Loving it. 

[turbonetics]

The Q was my first Leica camera after using Canon for 7 years and hearing people raving about Leica. So I bought the Q to try it out myself and see if Leica is really that great. I can say the Q has won me over to Leica and I hope the M and future SL lenses would perform at least on par with the Q. Afterall I still prefer a camera that allows me to change glasses and if I could choose, I still prefer 35 to 28mm.

[meerec]

The Q was my first Leica camera after using Canon for 7 years and hearing people raving about Leica. So I bought the Q to try it out myself and see if Leica is really that great. I can say the Q has won me over to Leica and I hope the M and future SL lenses would perform at least on par with the Q. Afterall I still prefer a camera that allows me to change glasses and if I could choose, I still prefer 35 to 28mm.

 

 

I'm in the process of transitioning from Canon (a user of close to 20 years) to the Leica platform. I took a different path. While still maintaining the Canon system, I started off by buying various M lenses. I used them first on Fuji XT-1. Sold it. Then tried them on Sony A7II. Sold it. Then Sony A7RII. Sold it. And finally bit the bullet and bought the SL as soon as it became available in Sydney. Had good feeling about it from the start. So far very happy with the SL + M lenses combo. In the meantime, my shooting friend bought into Leica Q. I've been watching her journey. And now I want to supplement SL with Q as my second body. 

[otto.f]

If you prefer 35 or 28, there is more reason to think of an M, if you are in the mood to give yourself a present. You are talking about a lot of money here. An M with the new Summilux 35 FLE is, I can assure you, defintiely something different than a cropped shot from Q. Do not forget you can attach all the R lenses on the M240 in the future. Or see the last interview with Stefan Daniels and wait until the next Photokina to see if something new with M will happen (better EVF for instance)

[turbonetics]

From what I read which I believe too(even though I had never tested), Leica camera on Leica lenses still produces different result with Leica lenses on other cameras where the main differences are the colour tone. I love the colour tone on the Q.

 

M240 was my consideration along with the SL.

Being never use a rangefinder before, the SL big and bright EVF won me over. I had the Canon 5DsR and works similar to the Q on crop mode. This is one feature that I find redundant and never interested in before and now.

[turbonetics]

I believe the M240 and SL produces very close images with the same lens right?

SL has slightly higher rated sensor from what I read.

[meerec]

If you prefer 35 or 28, there is more reason to think of an M, if you are in the mood to give yourself a present. You are talking about a lot of money here. An M with the new Summilux 35 FLE is, I can assure you, defintiely something different than a cropped shot from Q. Do not forget you can attach all the R lenses on the M240 in the future. Or see the last interview with Stefan Daniels and wait until the next Photokina to see if something new with M will happen (better EVF for instance)

 

 

A cropped shot from Q? Hmmm ... Cropped in what way?

And don't forget to ask yourself if you care about that cropping of people's feet shooting with M. 

Go SL!! I'm just suggesting, no insult to the M users. 

[steppenw0lf]

I believe the M240 and SL produces very close images with the same lens right?

SL has slightly higher rated sensor from what I read.

 

 

Hi Turbonetics,

the SL sensor produces nicer colours. Especially the red hues are clearly better (at least for my taste).

If you want to read more about how well rangefinder lenses work on SL and M (and others) check the Reid Reviews site. It's not free but well worth the money.

And by the way, congratulations to your decision !

[LocalHero1953]

I believe the M240 and SL produces very close images with the same lens right?

SL has slightly higher rated sensor from what I read.

I think the SL produces better images: wider DR, better high ISO performance, more attractive noise/grain and, crucially, better (more delicate, subtle) colours. That said, I see this as a normal technology progress matter, and I am sure the next M will leapfrog the SL's sensor.

[TRIago]

Why wait? ... I always buy at the beginning of the cycle to enjoy it early and for much longer. I've had my SL since beginning of December 2015 and never looked back. Loving it.

Because he just bought the Q. That's why. As I said, my point of view. ;-)

[TRIago]

Since you just got the Q, what about the M9? You'd have a second camera without braking your bank account. Good news about the M9 is the fact that Leica is replacing the CCD free of charge. Plus you'd have a sensor very unique.

 

I got my M9's ccd replaced by Leica in October and honestly I'm not selling this camera (or buying a different one for that matter) anytime soon. With the price, it's a win/win - considering the fact that you already have the Q.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ramarren]

I believe the M240 and SL produces very close images with the same lens right?

SL has slightly higher rated sensor from what I read.

 

 

I've been testing the WATE with both the SL and the M-P typ 240 the past two days. Looking at raw files of similar subjects and exposures, they are very similar in appearance with the processing set to the defaults and can look identical with a little bit of adjustment. At higher sensitivity settings (over 3200), the SL produces less noise and continues to hold on to dynamic range. 

 

Both are very fine cameras to shoot with, regardless. They are chalk and cheese with respect to control paradigms and ergonomics. The WATE was made for the M and is utterly natural on it, it's a little less perfect on the SL. On the other hand, my Super-Elmar-R 15mm is a huge lump of a lens and suits the SL perfectly where it's awkward to work with on the M. 

 

If I could only have one, it would be the SL due to its versatility, ergonomics, etc. Luckily, I don't have to make that choice. 

[jonoslack]

Of course you should get it (if you can afford it without pain). It'll expand your horizons and challenge you.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[SteveSFO]

Initially I gave up my Q to help fund the SL.  What got me to that decision was when my Leica Rep. handed me his SL with a Noct attached.  I nailed focus every time and actually noticed that the combination wasn't much larger than my M246 with grip and EVF.  The SL is great but I found myself missing the Q.  I have an X100t to use as a daily knock around camera, but I did miss how the Q performed.   In hindsight I should have just waited a bit and funded the SL outright versus doing the usual trade/sell thing since I ended up getting a Q once again.

 

The SL is just a totally different experience.  The best way is to find a way to keep playing with one to see if it is right for you.  It's going to be heavier and you will stand out a bit when taking photos since the SL body makes a presence and thus very noticeable.