Considering a SL ; anyone with Leica S experience moved to a SL ?

[proenca]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi there,

 

I'm about to sell one of my M bodies ( MD ) since I can't really get along with the colours.

 

I also want some AF in my life ( only have M bodies ) so I narrowed it down to either a SL or a S006.

 

I have no need for high iso or 4k video, but won't be unhappy if I have them.

 

I had a S2 when it came out and then due to financial reasons, I had to sell it but its quality ( with the 70mm ) is something I lust even today.

 

My problem with the SL is twofold : it weights a lot ( with the zoom or even with the 50lux ) and its comparable to a S weight and the lens... I dont know, the vario zoom is gorgeous for a zoom, but, to what I can see, no match for a S prime. I cannot find a single SL photo taken with the zoom that I say "whooaaa". Sharp they are, 3d pop they are not ( from what I see ). 

 

Of course I can buy the M adapter and slap my M lens, but for that, I would rather stay with my typ262 - high iso is already spectacular and as I said it, no need for video.

 

Am I wrong ? I'm a Leica user and I shoot mainly family photos + travel photos + landscapes. So not really in need for high isos -I rarely get up ISO 640. Alas, I bought my M9 new and still use it today. 

 

My AF needs is basically a camera that can keep up-ish with my 2year old daughters - the S2 I remembered that has a AF that is not very fast but was precise.

 

Anyone who moved from a S line to a SL or have both systems, please comment

[Ruz]

Never own Leica S, but Tried it several time because I was thinking about getting them before i purchased my SL. I bought the SL because of its great IQ and Fast AF. And it has a better grip than the S for me. Looking at your needs, seems SL is a better choice?

 

Just an opinion

 

Cheers

[dkCambridgeshire]

Hi there,

 

I'm about to sell one of my M bodies ( MD ) since I can't really get along with the colours.

 

I also want some AF in my life ( only have M bodies ) so I narrowed it down to either a SL or a S006.

 

I have no need for high iso or 4k video, but won't be unhappy if I have them.

 

I had a S2 when it came out and then due to financial reasons, I had to sell it but its quality ( with the 70mm ) is something I lust even today.

 

My problem with the SL is twofold : it weights a lot ( with the zoom or even with the 50lux ) and its comparable to a S weight and the lens... I dont know, the vario zoom is gorgeous for a zoom, but, to what I can see, no match for a S prime. I cannot find a single SL photo taken with the zoom that I say "whooaaa". Sharp they are, 3d pop they are not ( from what I see ). 

 

Of course I can buy the M adapter and slap my M lens, but for that, I would rather stay with my typ262 - high iso is already spectacular and as I said it, no need for video.

 

Am I wrong ? I'm a Leica user and I shoot mainly family photos + travel photos + landscapes. So not really in need for high isos -I rarely get up ISO 640. Alas, I bought my M9 new and still use it today. 

 

My AF needs is basically a camera that can keep up-ish with my 2year old daughters - the S2 I remembered that has a AF that is not very fast but was precise.

 

Anyone who moved from a S line to a SL or have both systems, please comment

 

 

Several Leica enthusiast colleagues have commented regarding this SL/28-90 image having 3D pop. The camera and lens is heavy-ish compared to an M but any M is lighter than e.g. a FF DSLR. Any FF telecentric zoom manufactured to professional specification (i.e. able to withstand hard use),  for a FF mirrorless ILC is likely to be bulky/heavy.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

My SL/28-90 is not my camera of choice for family photos but for documentary imaging it is ideal. 

 

Have you considered or tried a Leica Q? A Q would be suitable for family groups and has potential for image cropping without compromising IQ … and it's portable thus ideal for travel. 

 

dunk 

[LD_50]

I don't see a lack of "pop" with the SL and 24-90. In fact it's about as good as my primes at like aperture. The big difference I see in comparison to my M shots is the shallower DOF available with the Summilux primes.

 

The SL is quite a bit lighter than the S and to me it's noticeable.

 

SL+24-90 weighs 1987g. S006+30-90 weighs 2535g.

 

SL+50 weighs 1912g. S006+70 weighs 2150g.

 

I think the big difference between these cameras is the speed of operation with the SL, the EVF vs OVF, and the SL is adaptable to a wide variety of lenses to build a much smaller system than one built around the S. IQ goes to the S system in my opinion.

[ramarren]

hi dunk: Seems a bit too much magenta in that rendering. I think it will pop if you dial that down. 

 

proenca: I've never owned any of the Leica S system. Lovely things, but until recently (with the advent of used bodies and lenses being available at only stratospheric prices) there was no way I could afford them. I've put my money into the slightly more affordable M and SL systems. 

 

The SL is, to me, the perfect follow on to the R system. The native zooms are bulky, yes, but no more so than comparable pro-grade lenses for most DSLR systems. I have both now, and use them along with R prime lenses on the SL body. I also have Leica M-D and a small brace of lenses for it. 

 

I don't know what about the M-D's color rendering you didn't like. To my eye, it does a superb job and has the best in-camera metering of all the digital M bodies I've used (M9, M-P typ 240, M-D typ 262). Of course, it only produces DNG files so the final color rendering is up to you to determine using whatever raw conversion software you prefer. 

 

The SL body is a bit bulkier than the M-D body; it's more akin to my Leicaflex SL body in size. That's just fine for me. The S007 is a good bit larger when I hold it, although not too different in weight.  The S system primes are larger and heavier than the R system primes. The SL body produces excellent DNG files; the default rendering in Lightroom compared to the M-D files is a bit less saturated and slightly less contrasty, but equally broad in tonal scale. It's very easy to customize the default rendering to increase contrast, pop, saturation, or what have you. 

 

For a travel system and family picture taking camera, the SL will be less to carry and more versatile than an S system. It will be a bulkier than an M system but a lot more versatile. For landscape, well, it depends what other gear you carry as to what's going to make you happy, and how big you print. The S system's bigger pixel count translates to the capability to print larger; but I rarely print that big. 

 

That's all I can offer from my experience. You'll likely have to work out what's going to satisfy you best on your own.

[Jeff S]

What's your output goal.... screen or print? If the latter, how big? If the former, screen quality and size? Color or b/w?

 

An iPhone pic can produce screen 'pop'.

 

Jeff

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hi dunk: Seems a bit too much magenta in that rendering. I think it will pop if you dial that down. ...

 

 

The SL body is a bit bulkier than the M-D body; it's more akin to my Leicaflex SL body in size. That's just fine for me. The S007 is a good bit larger when I hold it, although not too different in weight.  The S system primes are larger and heavier than the R system primes. The SL body produces excellent DNG files; the default rendering in Lightroom compared to the M-D files is a bit less saturated and slightly less contrasty, but equally broad in tonal scale. It's very easy to customize the default rendering to increase contrast, pop, saturation, or what have you. 

 

For a travel system and family picture taking camera, the SL will be less to carry and more versatile than an S system. It will be a bulkier than an M system but a lot more versatile. For landscape, well, it depends what other gear you carry as to what's going to make you happy, and how big you print. The S system's bigger pixel count translates to the capability to print larger; but I rarely print that big. 

 

That's all I can offer from my experience. You'll likely have to work out what's going to satisfy you best on your own.

 

 

Apologies for the magenta cast… that's due to my colour blindness … previous versions were checked by others for colour cast but this example was not. But I hope the 3D effect is apparent. 

 

dunk 

[fsprow]

I had a S006 for a while and then an SL which I returned to the dealer for various reasons.  I'm a bit of a medium format buff, not so much for the megapixels (though I surely like them making big prints for clients) but for the much greater accuracy and depth of the color palette.

 

I wish I still had the S but it had a variety of problems which took the camera away for repairs too often for the economics to work. For medium format I now use a Hasselblad H6D 100c, mainly in the studio but I'm crazy enough to use it on the street as well.

 

If you can take a look at the files from each and see what you think.

[proenca]

I had a S006 for a while and then an SL which I returned to the dealer for various reasons.  I'm a bit of a medium format buff, not so much for the megapixels (though I surely like them making big prints for clients) but for the much greater accuracy and depth of the color palette.

 

I wish I still had the S but it had a variety of problems which took the camera away for repairs too often for the economics to work. For medium format I now use a Hasselblad H6D 100c, mainly in the studio but I'm crazy enough to use it on the street as well.

 

If you can take a look at the files from each and see what you think.

 

 

why you did not keep the SL ? if you could send me a few files, would be super ; I'll send you my email via PM

[tom0511]

I use both. IMO the S shows (slightly) more 3d and a smoother transition to background, the SL maybe a bit more "punch", and its less prone to camera shake.

[R3D-D0T]

Maybe get a A7RII? Its EVF is not as good as the SL but it's lighter and having 4K/high ISO doesn't hurt.

 

It's a bit of a fuzzy system but at least it's not as heavy (or impractical IMO).

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I have both. An S2, 007 and SL.

 

The SL zoom is better than the S zoom. The 30-90 is stellar at wide focal lengths and poor (in the corners and long edges) at 90mm. The 24-90 is a bit better at 24mm and great to 75mm with a very slight dip to 90mm. But it's still better than the 30-90 at the long end as well as most every other standard zoom on the market. Even at f8-11 the corners of the 30-90 never get above average.The 90-280 is probably the best medium telezoom made at the moment. Great all the way through.

 

The SL primes are as good as the S primes. Problem is there's only one. But optically it's stellar. AF is slower than the zooms but still usable, unless you shoot sports with a fixed 50mm, I suppose.

 

You can mount Slenses on the SL easily enough, with the adaptor. S lenses are spectacular on the SL.

 

Everything the S does the SL does faster. Much faster.

 

You can adapt nearly anything to the SL. That makes lots of interesting Canikon glass usable on the SL. All your M lenses will work on the SL, with an adaptor.

 

The SL has the best EVF. The S has a top end OVF. I prefer the advantages of an EVF. YMMV. The SL can focus anywhere on the screen, has a horizon in the VF. live histograms etc... The S has live view but it's slow and a tripod only experience.

 

The SL has about the same DR as the 006, maybe even a little bit more. The 007 is about a stop better than the SL.

 

From a pure IQ point the S007 with primes bests the SL. The SL nearly matches the S006 except for resolution. For everything else the SL is a better choice as a general purpose camera.

 

Gordon

[Jeff S]

And the SL zooms are faster than the S zoom, combined with OIS, which greatly enhances handheld utility and performance.

 

Jeff

[tom0511]

The flexibility of the Sl with the Zoom is very good. The 50 SL is very good. I still think to often see a special "extra" in S images which I dont see that often in SL images.

to the OP: I just recently took some images of flowers with the SL+50, S+70 and M+50APO, if you interested I can e-mail you.

[proenca]

The flexibility of the Sl with the Zoom is very good. The 50 SL is very good. I still think to often see a special "extra" in S images which I dont see that often in SL images.

to the OP: I just recently took some images of flowers with the SL+50, S+70 and M+50APO, if you interested I can e-mail you.

 

email sent

[hhn360]

 

You can mount Slenses on the SL easily enough, with the adaptor. S lenses are spectacular on the SL.

 

 

Hi Gordon,

 

I am thinking of doing just this.  I shoot beauty + fashion, so it would be either with the 100mm or 120mm.  I was wondering what your experience is regarding the speed and reliability of the autofocus of these lenses on the SL?  And would you have a preference of one lens over the other? 

 

Thanks,

Hien

[mgrayson3]

I have and use both systems. Every shot I take with the SL, I wish I'd taken with the S. It's just not always possible. I can go wider on the SL, but the WATE is not quite up to the wide end of the 24-90, let alone S glass. (This is visible in the MTF charts - it's not that I have a bad WATE). I haven't tried the Voigtlander super-ultra-hyper wides. 

 

Having said that, I get great images with the SL, it's an easier package to carry around - SL+(24-90)+WATE weighs a hair more than the S+70 and much less than the S+24. I would want to travel with S+24+70+120, but that's twice the weight of the SL kit covering the same focal lengths.

 

The SL AF with the native zooms is amazingly fast. The 90-280 is miraculous in its quality and speed. Manual focusing with the ultra wides is tricky, as zooming in doesn't get you that close. f/8 and guessing works for me. But I do better focusing with the S+24 than with the SL+WATE. 

 

I'm going on a week long trip of day-hikes and I haven't yet figured out which system to take!

 

--Matt

[helged]

Hi Matt, if I may ask, which S do you have? I'm particularly interested in comparison between the SL and S sensor (I have and love the SL, but I am pondering on adding an S since the used prices are relatively low).

[mgrayson3]

I have the S(006). At ISO 800 and below, I prefer it (slightly) to the 007. Live view would be very helpful, and I'd probably have gone 007 if the price differential hadn't been so large at the time - I got the S+warranty at an insanely low price. ISO 1600 on the S(006) is sometimes great, sometimes terrible, similar to ISO 6400 is on the SL or S(007).

 

The price of an S is, of course, the lenses. You may start, as I did, with Contax lenses, but the S lenses will get you. They are wonderful.

 

Best,

 

Matt

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Hi Gordon,

 

I am thinking of doing just this.  I shoot beauty + fashion, so it would be either with the 100mm or 120mm.  I was wondering what your experience is regarding the speed and reliability of the autofocus of these lenses on the SL?  And would you have a preference of one lens over the other? 

 

Thanks,

Hien

 

On the SL body S lenses focus as fast as they do on the S. Except you can focus them anywhere on the sensor. If they miss focus they rack through the range. I've learned to stop and refocua which reverses the direction. I don't have the 100 yet. The 120 is su[eeb on the SL.

 

Gordon