SL purchase question...

[Joshua Lowe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The SL offers a high degree of versatility in a compact package.  I'd much rather carry an SL and a few M lenses on long trips than any DSLR.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Joshua Lowe]

A different look at the weight.

Yes, the SL is heavy, and the SL lenses are large and heavy. As a trial, I took the SL and 24-90 on a trip to Bologna and spent a couple of days walking around the city with the camera in a hand strap (too heavy/bulky for a neck strap IMO). I found it OK, but just OK: it wouldn't be my choice as a carry around camera. But as a camera to shoot with, it is well balanced, and the weight is not a concern: my muscles are tensed for shooting and the weight gets taken in its stride. I find the 90-280 equally acceptable in a shooting session, but I do find myself limbering up to swing the longer lens up into position.

 

So if you want a camera to carry around looking for shots, then IMO it is too heavy for long periods (I stick to the M). As an active shooting camera, the weight is just not an issue.

 

https://www.novoflex.com/en/products/adapters/stativschelle-leica-sl/ Novoflex tripod collar for SL lenses

http://blackrapid.com/Straps/ Blackrapid strap

 

The collar puts the attachment point for your strap at the center of balance rather than at the body.  Your shoulders and back will thank you for it, infinitely.

[LocalHero1953]

https://www.novoflex.com/en/products/adapters/stativschelle-leica-sl/ Novoflex tripod collar for SL lenses

http://blackrapid.com/Straps/ Blackrapid strap

 

The collar puts the attachment point for your strap at the center of balance rather than at the body.  Your shoulders and back will thank you for it, infinitely.

I don't doubt you, but I actually don't do neck straps with any camera - wrist strap for the M and hand strap for the SL. And for hiking I use the Peak Designs Capture Pro to hold the M on my pack shoulder strap.

[ramarren]

Thanks for the well thought out response. I shoot landscape. portraits and street stuff. No sports or serious action... other than once in a while. I do like to shoot available light so HIGH ISO performance is important for sure.

 

I come from a Nikon background... with a ton of Nikon glass. I buy and sell plenty... and I am definitely a gear guy Love buying/selling... trying etc.

 

After using the Q for a while... I sold my D810 and kept the D5. The D5 lives with a 24-70 attached. I love the D5 IQ and build... but hate the size. I even sold the 70-200 a few times... because I never used it. I have the new 300 F4 and the 105 F1.4 which are smaller and stellar.

 

I am intrigued by the SL... and would likely get the 24-90 to use on it... It's smaller than the D5 which I like... and I love the EVF for sure. Seeing the size of even the new 50 SL... it's damn big. Lenses are not like to get smaller any time soon.

 

Decisions, decisions...

 

Problem is... even to try the SL for a while is crazy expensive. I have been sort of looking for one... but would need the 24-90 to use on it too. Quite the outlay of cash.

 

 

Hmm. Some comments:

 

- I generally wouldn't consider Leica to be a make to play the 'buy and sell all the time' game with unless you happen to be very wealthy. For me, Leicas have always been a 'buy and use' proposition. I tend to buy less, use more, and keep longer than most other brands for two reasons: the overall quality and build of the equipment is robust, and it nearly always performs so well there's no real reason to change it around all the time. The price of this gear is high, like with most quality things, so you're best off buying what you need to do the photography you want and using it for a long time in order to get the value from it. 

 

- The upcoming SL prime lenses (Summicron-SL 35, 75, and 90 mm) all look to be somewhat smaller than the existing zooms and upcoming Summilux-SL 50mm. The existing zooms aren't so much larger than the equivalent quality/speed zooms for the full-frame DSLR systems either; they seem big when compared to Leica M lenses. The SL with any lens is big compared to a Q. The Q is small and light, even compared to an M. But these are all three very different cameras, intended for different use and users. 

 

- The SL's performance at ISO 6400, 12800, and even 20000 is very very good. As good as any of the extreme high ISOs in the big DSLRs in my opinion; to me, most anything at ISO 6400 or higher looks almost the same in almost all these cameras and the noise pattern of the SL is pretty pleasing. That's a subjective evaluation, of course; I don't spend a lot of time pixel-peeping photographs. Like many Leica owners, I also shoot almost exclusively available light just as you do, so this is not unknown territory.   

 

The question really centers on what you want, what you want to do with it, and whether you are willing to spend the money for Leica gear to get that. Leica owners tend to be equipment enthusiasts, yes, but they tend to be photographers first, looking for the nuances and qualities of Leica lenses in their pictures. Most tend to buy gear and keep it—use it—a good long while. There are always exceptions, but I suspect that if you're interested to do that the SL will make you happy. And I suspect that if you are really more interested in experimenting with all kinds of different gear, the SL will turn out to be a rather expensive experiment that will leave you cold (and a bit poorer). 

 

There's no disparagement intended in that statement, btw: there's nothing wrong with enjoying experimentation with different gear. Not to me, anyway, I've experimented with tons of different equipment over the years. Leica is where I generally come to when I'm done with the equipment experimentation and just want to get on with the photography. For me, that is where it excels. 

[steppenw0lf]

I was wondering the motivation for you guys to buy the SL. Like I have stated previously, I just bought a Q and really love it. I am brand new to Leica.

 

Being a DSLR and interchangeable lens guy... I am curious about the SL. Why did YOU chose to buy it?

 

They way I see it... the only real reason to buy it is for people who have invested pretty seriously in Leica glass. It seems manually focusing using the SL is better than on any previous Leica to date. However, if someone is new to Leica, has no other Leica glass, and wants AF, the SL system is lacking badly.

 

It just seems like it's not ready for prime time yet. A Nikon D5 is cheaper, has better AF, HIGH ISO performance and a better selection of AF lenses.

 

So is the ease of use with older Leica glass the main reason most of you bought??

 

Don't get me wrong... I am not saying I don't like the SL. On the contrary... I'm looking for a reason to buy it

 

 

Flexibility to use almost any lens in almost any circumstances. AF and manual equally well usable.

EVF is best available and gets even more important the longer I use it.

Other mirrorless have a rather poor quality EVF (X1D, Sony alphas).

OVF is very poor compared - not possible to clearly see if the focus is hit or not while in the field. So a lot of additional safety shots. Very few preview possibilities (only with chimping). A pain to use manual lenses (e.g. macro lenses or tilt-shift lenses)

 

So regarding these features the other cameras are simply far off.

[Donzo98]

Hmm. Some comments:

 

- I generally wouldn't consider Leica to be a make to play the 'buy and sell all the time' game with unless you happen to be very wealthy. For me, Leicas have always been a 'buy and use' proposition. I tend to buy less, use more, and keep longer than most other brands for two reasons: the overall quality and build of the equipment is robust, and it nearly always performs so well there's no real reason to change it around all the time. The price of this gear is high, like with most quality things, so you're best off buying what you need to do the photography you want and using it for a long time in order to get the value from it. 

 

- The upcoming SL prime lenses (Summicron-SL 35, 75, and 90 mm) all look to be somewhat smaller than the existing zooms and upcoming Summilux-SL 50mm. The existing zooms aren't so much larger than the equivalent quality/speed zooms for the full-frame DSLR systems either; they seem big when compared to Leica M lenses. The SL with any lens is big compared to a Q. The Q is small and light, even compared to an M. But these are all three very different cameras, intended for different use and users. 

 

- The SL's performance at ISO 6400, 12800, and even 20000 is very very good. As good as any of the extreme high ISOs in the big DSLRs in my opinion; to me, most anything at ISO 6400 or higher looks almost the same in almost all these cameras and the noise pattern of the SL is pretty pleasing. That's a subjective evaluation, of course; I don't spend a lot of time pixel-peeping photographs. Like many Leica owners, I also shoot almost exclusively available light just as you do, so this is not unknown territory.   

 

The question really centers on what you want, what you want to do with it, and whether you are willing to spend the money for Leica gear to get that. Leica owners tend to be equipment enthusiasts, yes, but they tend to be photographers first, looking for the nuances and qualities of Leica lenses in their pictures. Most tend to buy gear and keep it—use it—a good long while. There are always exceptions, but I suspect that if you're interested to do that the SL will make you happy. And I suspect that if you are really more interested in experimenting with all kinds of different gear, the SL will turn out to be a rather expensive experiment that will leave you cold (and a bit poorer). 

 

There's no disparagement intended in that statement, btw: there's nothing wrong with enjoying experimentation with different gear. Not to me, anyway, I've experimented with tons of different equipment over the years. Leica is where I generally come to when I'm done with the equipment experimentation and just want to get on with the photography. For me, that is where it excels. 

 

I have a feeling the Q will not be going anywhere any time soon.. absolutely love it.

 

I also have a feeling that the SL will be the same... likely not going to be a buy and sell proposition.

 

The Nikon stuff is fun to swap out as needed... because it is so abundant.

 

The only reason I was even looking at the SL is because I LOVE the EVF, build quality and IQ of the Q so much. I think the SL will be even better....

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... However, if someone is new to Leica, has no other Leica glass, and wants AF, the SL system is lacking badly...

 

... I'm looking for a reason to buy it

Not sure why you say the SL system is "lacking badly" - what is missing for you? The camera is such a universal platform, I'm sure there is a solution for anything you feel is missing. Already owning Leica glass isn't really the point, nor is the lack of a huge range of native SL lenses, really ... unless it is something you need which can't be met with other glass which works well on the SL.

 

I don't say that to be defensive or combative, just to understand what you mean.

 

Anyway, you asked why did SL owners buy into the system.

 

I have always been a Nikon shooter (I had a Hasselblad system as well, though). I loved the quality of the Nikkor lenses, and the images I got from them. The cameras were robust, and I wrecked a few of them. I tried long lenses (the worst being a 100-300 zoom, which was huge), and some wides. My core kit resolved itself to 14-24 AF-S zoom, mid-range manual focus zoom (35-85?) and the sublime 180/2.8 IFED prime. It gave me the range I wanted with my F5; then the lot got nicked.

 

My first digital camera of note was the M9. I loved the simplicity of one camera, one lens. Sold my Hassie gear (dumb move, in retrospect), and I thought I was sorted. But ... there are limits to the rangefinder experience, particularly macro, the long end and very wide. So, I tried a number of alternatives - Nex-5n (it had the benefit of using M glass as well as its native zoom, but the IQ was really not up to much); Sony A7r (with native zoom, and converter, but it didn't play nice with M glass - actually, I just hated the camera as much as anything); D800e (with an AF prime and 80-400 AF-S zoom - stupid huge); Leica T (with mid-range AF zoom - EVF blackout killed it for me).

 

So, I loved the M system and my accumulating M glass (the heart of my photography, I guess), but I was looking for something more. A mirrorless camera which played nicely with my M glass, and offered the reach, autofocus and just added all the things which the M couldn't do or didn't do so well.

 

Like Gordon, the SL hit the spot for me. The system was bigger and heavier than I would have wanted, but compared to the opposition, it was fine - I was well informed over the size and weight, and it isn't a penalty compared to the D800e that I had; and it has the clarity of design that is inherent in all Leica cameras - very well thought out. Would I buy it if I didn't already have M lenses? Probably. I like primes by disposition, but the two zooms are very good, weather sealed and they cover the range I need. When I want something smaller, I have M lenses from 15mm to 90mm, and a choice of M bodies (film and digital). But most of the time, the SL is my camera of choice. It really is that good.

 

If I were buying into the system new, I would get the SL and 24-90 zoom (what some disparagingly call the "kit" lens), and see how I went. What would I add? I'd certainly think of M or SL primes - the 50 Summilux in M mount is fantastic, as are the APO 50 Summilux-M and the Noctilux. Alternatively, if AF is important, the 50 Summilux-SL sounds fantastic. I'd then look at a wide (28mm, in M mount, Otus, R mount ... there are lots of fantastic choices), maybe an ultrawide (Distagon 15/2.8, W-A-T-E etc), macro (good choices in R mount), and a mid-range tele (I have the R mount 180/2.8 and 2x adapter), or the 90-280 zoom.

 

No shortage of really good choices, even if you only use the SL. The benefit in adding M mount glass is that it is manual focus, smaller and it pretty much all works well on the SL (the previous 28 Summicron being a notable exception); and you can add an M camera at some stage, if you want a more compact alternative.

 

That's pretty much why I bought into the SL system. For sports, birds, anything that requires a tripod, wet, rugged and adventurous activities, and travel, the SL has been my weapon of choice.

 

I hope that gives you a different perspective.

[Leicaiste]

I bought the SL to use it with my R lenses.

 

Now it is also the only camera I use with my M lenses.

 

After a year, I am still postponing the purchase of any of the SL Vario's.

 

In my opinion there was never a better digital camera for M and R lenses.

[ramarren]

I bought the SL to use it with my R lenses.

 

Now it is also the only camera I use with my M lenses.

 

After a year, I am still postponing the purchase of any of the SL Vario's.

 

In my opinion there was never a better digital camera for M and R lenses.

 

 

Certainly agree on the R lenses. I do still happen to prefer using most M lenses with an M body, due to the ergonomics, but they image extremely well with the SL as well. Some actually fit and work better on the SL, like the Noctilux 50mm. 

 

I'm not generally a zoom user, I only bought the SL24-90 because I wanted at least one lens that supported the full feature set of the SL. And, have to say, I'm fair delighted with how well it performs.

 

That said, I'm beginning to believe that I should let go of my R135/2.8, R180/2.8, and R250/4 lenses and buy the SL90-280 because of both its performance and the IS system. I'll probably use the long focal lengths more if I do that. (I'll keep the R180/4 because it's so small and light...)