Jump to content

SL or Sony A7RIII for use with older lenses?


pixelman

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Background: I’m a long term Leica M user (film and digital). I have a pretty fun set of older lenses including a number of short Teles that I would love to be able to use on an EVF camera. The EVF on the M240 has some utility (when I use the camera on a tripod for instance), but I can’t see ever using it for street photography, portraits or most anything else. The M10’s EVF is better, but it doesn’t feel like a real solution to me (I don’t have an M10, but have tried one with an EVF). I have spent a few hours with an SL and loved the EVF and the output. I’m pretty sure I could get used to the user interface of the SL. I have also rented various Sony A7 models and while they work pretty well, I never fell in love with one. Oh, and I also have a DSLR kit that I use for sports, wildlife and macro, so I can’t see ever buying zooms other AF lenses for an SL (or the Sony). I wish the M10 and EVF solution did the job as this would be great for me, but that combo is a bit of a hack and frankly I expected much more given what a failure the EVF was on the M240.

 

Goal/Job to be done: I want an EVF body that will allow accurate focusing with wide apertures on lenses from 35-180mm focal lengths. Lenses will be a mix of M, LTM, Nikon S, Nikon F, and Canon FD.

 

Question: the Sony A7RIII sounds like it has an EVF almost as good as the SL and it has 15 stops of dynamic range, it is smaller and lighter and it has an articulating screen. I’m sure that I still won’t love the user interface of the Sony, but the difference in price between the A7RIII and the SL is almost 2x... given that my M’s are still likely to be my main cameras, is the SL worth it as a body to use with older lenses or should I go for the Sony?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rent or demo both and decide. You know your needs and preferences best. And you already own the lenses.

 

Jeff

Thanks for the good advice Jeff. I would still be curious if the SL users here have A7RI or II experience with older glass and want to offer any thoughts.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Either will work well IMHO (with the caveat that I haven't used any lenses shorter than 90mm on the SL).  In the time I had with the SL I wasn't quite as confident of non-magnified focussing as I am with the a7II or a7rII but it's possible that I hadn't discovered a viewfinder setting like the Sony's 'high quality' setting that resulted in a distinct shimmering effect at the plane of focus.  The Sony also has sensor stabilization which I've found is very handy when using focus magnification with the longer lenses.  The SL dosn't have any stabilization except with SL lenses, so for longer non-native lenses I'd favor the Sony.

 

 

Sony's claim of 15 stops dynamic range should come with an asterisk.  15 stops only applies when using the pixel-shift mode which is not useful with moving subjects.

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

 I have spent a few hours with an SL and loved the EVF and the output. I’m pretty sure I could get used to the user interface of the SL. I have also rented various Sony A7 models and while they work pretty well, I never fell in love with one. Oh, and I also have a DSLR kit that I use for sports, wildlife and macro, so I can’t see ever buying zooms other AF lenses for an SL (or the Sony).

 

Goal/Job to be done: I want an EVF body that will allow accurate focusing with wide apertures on lenses from 35-180mm focal lengths. Lenses will be a mix of M, LTM, Nikon S, Nikon F, and Canon FD.

 

 

 

The 'love' factor is critical ...... you will put up with the irritations of a wife you love, but life with even the most glamorous of women pales if they are a pain to live with .....  :rolleyes:

 

Both will do everything you want 95% of the time ....... so go with the one you actually like using. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the Sony A7RII for 6 months before seeing the Leica SL come out. I could crop the pics any which way I wanted, lenses were cheap (compared to Leica). The lure to Leica world was strong when one day at a downtown core camera shop and they presented me with a Leica SL to try.

 

The Sony just paled beside the Leica, like a mid size truck to a full size truck. I knew the Sony could do everything the SL could but the right sales person and a valid credit card prevailed and I ordered an SL and they traded all my Sony kit for it plus an insane amount of cash. The SL takes remarkable pictures with me at the helm, and I have grown my Leica lenses to include the 24-90, Summilux 35 FLE and 50mm lenses. This has been my kit for over a year now. But when the airshow came this year, I was without the ability to take long range photos as the 90-280mm as long was it sounds really is not long enough for me (Leica told me no teleconverter on the way, btw) and the price tag is well, over the top ($9500 CDN). I use to use a 300mm and a 1.4x adapter at airshows on my Nikon D800.

 

Along comes the Sony A7RIII, fixes much of the A7RII short comings and well, well, a 400mm f/2.8 lens is being offered. What a delema, so I put my name on the pre-order list and casually told the wife I pre-ordered a new camera. I don't think she heard me or just tuned me out.

 

For the cost of the 90-280 Leica I can have a 42mp camera (lots of crop capability), and a tilt screen, and ability to turn off NR (Leica you can do this on the SL) with a new shiny 400mm lens. The SL will stay in the stable for now as I also see a Noctilux 0.95 in the next couple of years unless we all goto cell phones (hehehe) . If Sony has an adapter for the M which exceeds its predecessor then maybe the SL could find a new home. The Leica brand has a loyal following but there are times I need a lens which I cannot afford in Leica brand and then wish for a cheaper kit.

 

My 2 cents,

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the good advice Jeff. I would still be curious if the SL users here have A7RI or II experience with older glass and want to offer any thoughts.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I have this experience, and you don't want it :)

To be fair, I tried M lenses only with the original a7R. The results with SL are much nicer, especially with wider lenses. As to shooting experience, somehow a7x cameras lost the ergonomics magic of a99. It really feels like you are shooting with a computer. SL in this respect is a true Leica.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow, I have never been tempted by the A7Rii (now Riii).  Sony puts 2 mm of protective glass over its sensors, which makes it necessary to go to a very heavy telecentric design (like Sony's and Zeiss's offerings) to get good sharpness across the frame.  With the lenses that I have (mostly Leica M) nothing below 50 mm works very well, and they are fine on the SL.  And big lenses on the little Sony body don't feel right to me.  Go over to lensrentals blog to see how water-resistant the A7R models are -- they take apart one completely ruined by a little salt water to see how far in the corrosion extended.  The camera came back clean but dead after a brief rental.  Finally, for gimmicky fast shooting, I have an Olympus E-M1.2.  And each time I get curious about what >24 MPx can do for me, I go to an MF 33x44 mm digital back (which has long been paid for and sits on some older Hasselblads).  That gives lovely images, but I always come back.

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

apparently this solution works quite well >

 

https://kolarivision.com/product/sony-a7-series-thin-filter-legacy-lens-upgrade/

 

Somehow, I have never been tempted by the A7Rii (now Riii).  Sony puts 2 mm of protective glass over its sensors, which makes it necessary to go to a very heavy telecentric design (like Sony's and Zeiss's offerings) to get good sharpness across the frame.  With the lenses that I have (mostly Leica M) nothing below 50 mm works very well, and they are fine on the SL.  And big lenses on the little Sony body don't feel right to me.  Go over to lensrentals blog to see how water-resistant the A7R models are -- they take apart one completely ruined by a little salt water to see how far in the corrosion extended.  The camera came back clean but dead after a brief rental.  Finally, for gimmicky fast shooting, I have an Olympus E-M1.2.  And each time I get curious about what >24 MPx can do for me, I go to an MF 33x44 mm digital back (which has long been paid for and sits on some older Hasselblads).  That gives lovely images, but I always come back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"given that my M’s are still likely to be my main cameras, is the SL worth it as a body to use with older lenses or should I go for the Sony?"

 

This is exactly the strength of the Leica SL. I have used M cameras for 30 years, and have a number of older M lenses. About three years ago, I started incorporating video into my projects, and went into the Sony ecosystem hard from an M9. After three Sony bodies, including an A7S, I found that I could have a nice hybrid still/video system as long as I used Sony native glass. Loxia lenses make great partners with the Sony system, but I hated the color out of the cameras, and my M (and Canon FD) lenses were collecting dust. I purchased a used Leica SL and haven't looked back. I can put anything on that camera, especially wide M lenses and it just works. I sold the Sony gear.

 

I don't miss IBIS because I tend to shoot video on a monopod or tripod. The color science of the Leica is great, although maybe Sony finally have it right with the A7R III....

 

I also find the size of the SL with the 24-90 to be more balanced than the small Sony A7 series bodies. The larger "pro" lenses on an A7x don't balance as well. Menus are much better organized on the Leica.

 

Rent both and see.

 

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Menus are much better organized on the Leica.

 

 

It doesn't get much attention, but one consequence of Leica's effort to simplify their cameras down to the essentials is user interfaces that are really easy to use.  The M's take no time to learn; the SL is frustrating for about one afternoon, then proves much more flexible.  Leica obscures this point by being rather rigid about how right things must be because they are done Leica's way.  But Sony and Olympus lose users who love their photo qualities because of functional disorganization and inconsistency.  And those deep menus!

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pixelman,

 

why not to take the Novoflex canon EF - Leica SL converter and use the CANON EF 100 - 400mm f/4.5 - 5.6L IS II USM ?

 

I have not this tele lense but use the Canon EF 24-105 f/4.0 and all infos and autofocusing work like a charm.

This combination will amount half the price of an all Leica solution.

 

My 2 cents.. :)

Edited by papimuzo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Sony A7RII. I got in hope to use Leica M lenses that can avoid Leica finder nfinite mismatch plus other possible benefits, such as video, EVF (when I want it over OVF).

 

But it is not up to my expectation at all.

 

All wide angle lens of 35mm and beyond look ugly. 50mm is the strting point. but even so, I have never managed well the color rendeting, regardless on LR or C1. I simple become mad on myself.

 

Then the nightmare came to my M9, lens corrosion. Leica offered me a good trade up to eithet M270 or SL, but not M10. I chose SL. SL is every bit as good as M9 although it has its own petsonality on color rendering, and I am equally happy about it.

 

I am going to Ebay my A7R2 and the Contax N and 645 adapters along with Contax Zeiss lenses as soon as I have its sensor cleaned by professional.

Edited by Einst_Stein
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the Sony A7RII for 6 months before seeing the Leica SL come out. I could crop the pics any which way I wanted, lenses were cheap (compared to Leica). The lure to Leica world was strong when one day at a downtown core camera shop and they presented me with a Leica SL to try.

 

The Sony just paled beside the Leica, like a mid size truck to a full size truck. I knew the Sony could do everything the SL could but the right sales person and a valid credit card prevailed and I ordered an SL and they traded all my Sony kit for it plus an insane amount of cash. The SL takes remarkable pictures with me at the helm, and I have grown my Leica lenses to include the 24-90, Summilux 35 FLE and 50mm lenses. This has been my kit for over a year now. But when the airshow came this year, I was without the ability to take long range photos as the 90-280mm as long was it sounds really is not long enough for me (Leica told me no teleconverter on the way, btw) and the price tag is well, over the top ($9500 CDN). I use to use a 300mm and a 1.4x adapter at airshows on my Nikon D800.

 

Along comes the Sony A7RIII, fixes much of the A7RII short comings and well, well, a 400mm f/2.8 lens is being offered. What a delema, so I put my name on the pre-order list and casually told the wife I pre-ordered a new camera. I don't think she heard me or just tuned me out.

 

For the cost of the 90-280 Leica I can have a 42mp camera (lots of crop capability), and a tilt screen, and ability to turn off NR (Leica you can do this on the SL) with a new shiny 400mm lens. The SL will stay in the stable for now as I also see a Noctilux 0.95 in the next couple of years unless we all goto cell phones (hehehe) . If Sony has an adapter for the M which exceeds its predecessor then maybe the SL could find a new home. The Leica brand has a loyal following but there are times I need a lens which I cannot afford in Leica brand and then wish for a cheaper kit.

 

My 2 cents,

 

 

How many airshows are you going to be shooting? How many other times do you absolutely need a 400mm lens? If the answers to those questions are "few" and "rarely," then I would stick with the camera that you already know makes you happy 95% of the time. Whether the new Sony will provide as high a happiness score is an open question. Also consider what lenses you would have to give up just to have access to a 400mm.

Edited by robgo2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Background: I’m a long term Leica M user (film and digital). I have a pretty fun set of older lenses including a number of short Teles that I would love to be able to use on an EVF camera. The EVF on the M240 has some utility (when I use the camera on a tripod for instance), but I can’t see ever using it for street photography, portraits or most anything else. The M10’s EVF is better, but it doesn’t feel like a real solution to me (I don’t have an M10, but have tried one with an EVF). I have spent a few hours with an SL and loved the EVF and the output. I’m pretty sure I could get used to the user interface of the SL. I have also rented various Sony A7 models and while they work pretty well, I never fell in love with one. Oh, and I also have a DSLR kit that I use for sports, wildlife and macro, so I can’t see ever buying zooms other AF lenses for an SL (or the Sony). I wish the M10 and EVF solution did the job as this would be great for me, but that combo is a bit of a hack and frankly I expected much more given what a failure the EVF was on the M240.

 

Goal/Job to be done: I want an EVF body that will allow accurate focusing with wide apertures on lenses from 35-180mm focal lengths. Lenses will be a mix of M, LTM, Nikon S, Nikon F, and Canon FD.

 

Question: the Sony A7RIII sounds like it has an EVF almost as good as the SL and it has 15 stops of dynamic range, it is smaller and lighter and it has an articulating screen. I’m sure that I still won’t love the user interface of the Sony, but the difference in price between the A7RIII and the SL is almost 2x... given that my M’s are still likely to be my main cameras, is the SL worth it as a body to use with older lenses or should I go for the Sony?

 

It's a personal choice, so you need to test it. For me it is the SL I prefer. But I cannot give you a "scientific" reason for it. I simply like the results better.

In the end I always found that specs on paper are meaningless. I would actually also prefer the new Nikon to the new Sony. But it is a DSLR (850), unfortunately.

 

By the way, the 15 stops dynamic range ... isn't it mainly a marketing gimmick ? All my media (tv, mac screen 5k, printed stuff, etc) have much lower DR. So how can I ever make use of it ? Other cameras have 14.5 - what a gap.

The SL is for me the best for vintage glass.

For modern stuff (sports gear, large white lenses) I use other equipment (CaNikon), mainly because of their many specialized AF/IS programs.

 

I like the SL, because of it's similarity to the R cameras. I even like to use the older teles (R 250 V2, R 350) or the perfect Apo R 180 (2.0 or 2.8 with extenders). The size is simply right (Sonys are too small).

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

Personally I consider the cost of switching between systems to far outweigh the full cost of the 90-280. The amount you lose from trading in and out is not recoverable. Conversely a lens like the 90-280 can serve you for decades and will have significant residual value when you want to move on.

 

When amortized over a long period of use, I don’t consider the cost of ownership of Leica to be that high.

 

I had the Sony A7RII for 6 months before seeing the Leica SL come out. I could crop the pics any which way I wanted, lenses were cheap (compared to Leica). The lure to Leica world was strong when one day at a downtown core camera shop and they presented me with a Leica SL to try.

 

The Sony just paled beside the Leica, like a mid size truck to a full size truck. I knew the Sony could do everything the SL could but the right sales person and a valid credit card prevailed and I ordered an SL and they traded all my Sony kit for it plus an insane amount of cash. The SL takes remarkable pictures with me at the helm, and I have grown my Leica lenses to include the 24-90, Summilux 35 FLE and 50mm lenses. This has been my kit for over a year now. But when the airshow came this year, I was without the ability to take long range photos as the 90-280mm as long was it sounds really is not long enough for me (Leica told me no teleconverter on the way, btw) and the price tag is well, over the top ($9500 CDN). I use to use a 300mm and a 1.4x adapter at airshows on my Nikon D800.

 

Along comes the Sony A7RIII, fixes much of the A7RII short comings and well, well, a 400mm f/2.8 lens is being offered. What a delema, so I put my name on the pre-order list and casually told the wife I pre-ordered a new camera. I don't think she heard me or just tuned me out.

 

For the cost of the 90-280 Leica I can have a 42mp camera (lots of crop capability), and a tilt screen, and ability to turn off NR (Leica you can do this on the SL) with a new shiny 400mm lens. The SL will stay in the stable for now as I also see a Noctilux 0.95 in the next couple of years unless we all goto cell phones (hehehe) . If Sony has an adapter for the M which exceeds its predecessor then maybe the SL could find a new home. The Leica brand has a loyal following but there are times I need a lens which I cannot afford in Leica brand and then wish for a cheaper kit.

 

My 2 cents,

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are using MF lenses I would go for the SL. The price difference between a barely used example and a new Sony is around 20% but I would hazard that you will lose less money buying the SL. Assuming, that is, that you are going to sell it sometime. I was a Minolta user for decades so went along with Sony after the takeover and, after a brief flirtation with Canon, reverted to Sony when they introduced their mirrorless E range. I still own the A7, a very competent camera, and a couple of FE lenses but, outside the studio, I found the A7RII rather hard to use and from what I see the A7R3 will be little different in this regard. It may be a marvel and the IQ is amazing but...IMO it is not a photographers' tool because it is too clever and too hard to use its capability. You can do so much with it but you forget how to do it because there are too many buttons! The SL, on the other hand, is minimalist but, because of dual capability buttons, is easy to use once you've mastered it. And it's optimised for Leica lenses. I find that Leica R lenses, in particular, go well with it. It's shortcoming right now is the lack of AF lenses, notwithstanding the quality of the two zooms and single prime which, unfortunately, are a little on the large side. Personally, I'm not bothered because I prefer MF anyway and the EVF makes such focusing very easy. And I love the solidity and the weather resistance. I'm sure the Sony is a great camera, though, and the A7RIV will be even better :)

Edited by Waterden
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

With wider than 50mm Leica M-lenses SL will be a better choice. SL is optimized to work with all m-lenses. Sony has a thick sensor cover glass which is problematic especially with some wide angle m-lenses (corner smearing and color cast). With Nikon F, Canon FD and other DSLR lenses there is no problem and both cameras should work equally well.

 

Sony has an in-body IBIS which can be a nice feature sometimes. Also,Sony has an autofocus adapter for Leica M-lenses called Techart pro. It has it's quirks and limitations (can't be used with lenses heavier than 700g) but it is still a working solution if you have problem focusing manually. I use it with Sony A7ll with Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 classic, Summicron m 50mm IV, Summarit 75mm and even with my Nikon F 105mm 2.5 AIS  and it works very well. 

 

Sony in-camera menus are often criticized, but I think the issue is a bit exaggerated. The menus are messy and could be better organized for sure, but once you have the basic setting done to your liking there is no reason to surf through the menus during shooting -at least for me anyway. The only function I need during shooting is the card formatting and it isn't SO hard to find.

 

It is obvious that at the Leica SL-forum you'll get many recommendations to get an SL. At Fred Miranda's Sony forum you would get as many recommendations to get a Sony. So I think the only way to know for sure is to rent both cameras. That's the only way to know, which is the best option for you.

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...