IS the SL still worth buying in 2018?

[Guest VVJ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you are planning to shoot M-glass I would stick with Leica and go for the Leica SL.  Sony will never support and continue to support M-glass as Leica does.

If you are looking to shoot native AF lenses then it becomes slightly harder IMO...

I own the SL with the 24-90mm zoom and it is superb but heavy...  and all of the other lenses are (too) heavy as well...

If you compare Sony with the Leica SL it see the following advantages:

• cost
• smaller/lighter lenses
• more complete native AF lens line-up
• better AF, AF-C, eye focus, etc
• IBIS

All of this might or might not be important to you. 

I personally would try them out both and if you can I would also wait till the SL2/A9ii get announced...

Edited April 20, 2018 by JorisV

[Giulio Zanni]

I am in Europe as well and recently got a second hand mint SL for 3500 euros. There are plenty right now from reputable dealers. I was considering the new Sony A7III but for the price the SL are going now to me is a no brainer and

your M lenses will shine.

 

Giulio

Edited April 20, 2018 by Giulio Zanni

[Advertisement]

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

[Bill W]

I just wonder why you wold not use the M adapter L I will recognize your coded M lens.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I have the M, SL, Sony A7R3 and A9. I also have comprehensive lens set for each so I can compare them directly.

 

The new Sonys. The latest Sony bodies are much improved over the previous ones, which were frustrating. Little things like the EVF being disabled when flipping the screen up add usability (the advantage of bailing out Olympus) as is IBIS. Customisability is excellent although the buttons are still to small. Also with the Sony you CAN make a small AF system as smaller options are available for many of the lenses such as the 55mm 1.8, 70-200mm f4, 16-35 f4 etc. If you choose mostly GM lenses the weight advantage disappears pretty quickly. There are more choices though, IF you need them. The main draw is the big three though. If you need mirrorless then Sony leads the way in resolution, IBIS and AF performance. Battery life is great, as is the SL but the Sony is better.

 

The SL. It’s a different camera to when it was released. Yes it’s bigger and heavier. It’s also better built, better weather sealed (have a look under the base plate on a Sony) and balances better than the Sony, so it doesn’t feel much heavier in use. The GM lenses on the Sony are nose heavy and you might need the grip to get some balance. The SL is better matched to it’s lenses so it doesn’t feel heavier after a long day of use.The SL EVF is better. Especially for manual focus duties. The joystick is much better. The Sony’s is awful after the SL. The SL shutter is better. Quieter and more damped. You can’t always use the silent shutter, which the SL has as well. I wish the SL had a flippy screen. The mandatory LENR bugs me as does the exposure preview. But that’s because they changed it from something I liked better. The SL is a far better camera in the hand. Bigger buttons. Better layout. More intuitive. You’ll look at the camera less when trying to make something happen on the SL. The top screen for hyperfocal distance is brilliant.

 

IQ differences. Ignoring the A7R3 sensor. If you need 42MP you need it and it does have more DR. So if you want that. Get it. In 24MP (A9) there’s not much real world differences. The IBIS makes a bigger difference than any DXO numbers. The sensor isn’t going to be why you choose one or the other. It’ll come down to the lenses. Many M lenses are the same or similar, especially the longer ones and the WATE. The wider lenses are a mixed bag. You’ll need to test. The Noctilux is much much better on the SL than either the M or the Sony. The SL profile is better (helps with some of the fringing) and it’s far easier to focus on the SL than any other camera. The 50 lux is better on the SL but not as good as the M.

 

Native lenses. The best SL lenses (all of them) are better than the best GM lenses. The GM lenses are great. The SL lenses are better. I really like the GM lenses, especially the 85. But the GM lenses are slightly behind the SL natives when it comes to handling CA. The exceptions are the GM100-400 which is spectacular and the 12-24G which has no Leica equivalent. The 24-90 is slightly better than the 24-105G (IQ) and 24-70GM (range). The 50 SL and 90 SL have almost no CA where as the G50 and GM85 show very slight colour edges in their broken balls. It’s subtle but if you have both side by side you’ll see it.

 

I have some specific scenarios where I need the resolution of the A7R3. However given a choice I’d reach for the SL every time. I really hope they make a 40MP version and I will dump the Sonys (if Leica get rid of the mandatory LENR). If all my gear was stolen I would replace the SL kit first. So yes, I think it still holds up.

 

Gordon

Edited April 20, 2018 by FlashGordonPhotography

[frame-it]

plenty of mint 2nd hand SL's ? so are people exchanging them or trading in for something else at these dealers ?

 

 

I am in Europe as well and recently got a second hand mint SL for 3500 euros. There are plenty right now from reputable dealers. I was considering the new Sony A7III but for the price the SL are going now to me is a no brainer and

your M lenses will shine.

 

Giulio

[NDTPHOTOGRAPHY]

Thanks Gordon, incredibly helpful.

It’s very easy to get tempted by the “appeal” of the 42mp sensor but when I really think about it, I don’t need it.

I rarely need to crop and have been very happy going from the 42mp on the a7rII to the “measly” 24mp of my M10. I love my M lenses over the E-mounts m I used to own.

So it looks like I’ll be looking for an SL and the 90APO SL.

Many thanks!

Nick

[lx1713]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If the available native SL lenses meet your needs. If the AF is sufficiently quick and accurate for you. And the manual focusing implementation adequate to you (compared with rangefinder M). And the flow of work solutions to your photography problems easily addressed. Then the SL is likely to remain a relevant and even a favourite tool for many years if you enjoy its ergonomics. Nothing beats using it extensively to know if you love it or not.

 

While I like the TL lenses on the SL. Nothing is quite like the 24-90 in most conditions for me.

 

I do experience occasional glitches with my SL when I push it hard but I believe its a matter of having adequate processing power.

[thighslapper]

plenty of mint 2nd hand SL's ? so are people exchanging them or trading in for something else at these dealers ?

 

G.A.S. is rife amongst photographers in the bracket that can afford an SL. No doubt they have all traded up for X1D's and will soon be after the next wunderkamera to take their photography to 'the next level' 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Or maybe they are reducing their stock of 2 or 3 SLs down to just one (can't do without) to get the best price during the brief interval remaining before the SL2 is announced and ships?

 

A third possibility.  They have been able to do everything with their new CL, and the SL hasn't come out of the closet enough.  

Edited April 21, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick

[SiggiGun]

Buying a SL in 2018? I had the same stress 4 weeks ago,... after 35 years of "M only". I can say now: It is a great camera! I love it. It's not an M replacement but an alternativ and complementary tool. 

[robgo2]

Thanks Gordon, incredibly helpful.

It’s very easy to get tempted by the “appeal” of the 42mp sensor but when I really think about it, I don’t need it.

I rarely need to crop and have been very happy going from the 42mp on the a7rII to the “measly” 24mp of my M10. I love my M lenses over the E-mounts m I used to own.

So it looks like I’ll be looking for an SL and the 90APO SL.

Many thanks!

Nick

 

Ultra-high MP sensors are largely a marketing gimmick IMO. Only in exceptional circumstances are 42MP preferable to 24MP as far as real world images are concerned. If I were a commercial or fashion photographer, I would be shooting medium format, not full-frame.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Ultra-high MP sensors are largely a marketing gimmick IMO. Only in exceptional circumstances are 42MP preferable to 24MP as far as real world images are concerned. If I were a commercial or fashion photographer, I would be shooting medium format, not full-frame.

 

I have a few thoughts on this and also wrestle with it, like others.

 

1. In 24x36mm resolution also seems to be tied to DR. If you want more DR you have to shoot a higher resolution sensor, for now.

2. Higher resolution allows people to shoot in cropped formats (ie: panoramics or 1:1), single shot, with sufficient quality.

3. It's addictive. Once you have those files it is hard to go back and it can push you to better technique.

 

I also shoot medium format commercially. And I'd prefer to shoot only that rather than the Sony. But there are plenty of things that medium format can't do well. For me it's the lack of wider tilt shift lenses, which I use regularly. For the fashion boys it's the tracking AF. On the flip side since the introduction of mirrorless medium format the shooting envelope has expanded significantly.

 

However, I have to largely agree with you. Mostly it's brought on by "what if..?" syndrome. "What if a superb landscape appears around the next corner?" "What if, National Geographic ring me for my lifes work in a special feature?" "What if the National Archive want to put my files in the next Voyager?"

 

But "what if" syndrome is also why we buy an f1.4 over an f2 lens. Why we throw a camera over our shoulder when we take the dog for a walk. Why we choose a Leica over a Sony.....

 

Nothing wrong with a bit of G.A.S. Life is meant to be enjoyed.  That should be a good enough reason to spoil ourselves on occasion.

 

Gordon

[robgo2]

I have a few thoughts on this and also wrestle with it, like others.

 

1. In 24x36mm resolution also seems to be tied to DR. If you want more DR you have to shoot a higher resolution sensor, for now.

2. Higher resolution allows people to shoot in cropped formats (ie: panoramics or 1:1), single shot, with sufficient quality.

3. It's addictive. Once you have those files it is hard to go back and it can push you to better technique.

 

I also shoot medium format commercially. And I'd prefer to shoot only that rather than the Sony. But there are plenty of things that medium format can't do well. For me it's the lack of wider tilt shift lenses, which I use regularly. For the fashion boys it's the tracking AF. On the flip side since the introduction of mirrorless medium format the shooting envelope has expanded significantly.

 

However, I have to largely agree with you. Mostly it's brought on by "what if..?" syndrome. "What if a superb landscape appears around the next corner?" "What if, National Geographic ring me for my lifes work in a special feature?" "What if the National Archive want to put my files in the next Voyager?"

 

But "what if" syndrome is also why we buy an f1.4 over an f2 lens. Why we throw a camera over our shoulder when we take the dog for a walk. Why we choose a Leica over a Sony.....

 

Nothing wrong with a bit of G.A.S. Life is meant to be enjoyed.  That should be a good enough reason to spoil ourselves on occasion.

 

Gordon

 

Gordon, I think we can all agree that there is no one perfect camera that suits all situations. That said, I am extremely pleased with the 24MP files that I am getting both from my SL and Q. In fact, I might even say that I am addicted to them. My quest now is for the right lenses for the SL. Good glass is probably of greater importance than the MP count, especially with recent camera bodies, all of which are more than satisfactory.

 

Rob

[paulsydaus]

And cheaper too!

 

The SL is better today than when it was announced.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ramarren]

Hi all and please don't shoot me for starting this thread.

 

First of all I own an M9 and a M10 along with 35 and 50 Luxs, a 50 APO a 90 tele-elmaritt and a Noctilux so I clearly love the M system.   However I have found that I need an autofocus camera for some of my projects.

 

Now to the point of my question - with the advent of the new Sony (I know.. I know) a7III and a7rIII along with the ability to use a Techart Pro M to E adapter, does the SL start to feel a bit long in the tooth?

 

I have read and re-read the specs ad nauseam but am more interested in real world experience or advice. 

 

I've read that Techart may be developing an M to SL adapter which would solve everything.  I also know the Sonys are way smaller and lighter and that the SL lenses, though excellent, are huge.  But even as I write this post, I'm sure you can feel my state of confusion. 

 

Price-wise the decision is obvious, a used SL goes for about €4400-€4900 (I'm in Europe) while a new a7rII goes for €2700-€3200 but there's that "Leica look" and the fact that M lenses don't play so well with Sony sensors (I know 1st hand as I used to own an a7rII and tried M lenses with techart adapter).  

 

But now that Sony has upped their game etc, I am lost.

 

So, I thank you in advance for your input and guidance 

 

P.S. My question is honest so please keep the snarky replies to yourselves.

 

All my best,

 

Nick

 

 

Yes. 

 

The SL is a finer camera than anything Sony has ever produced. I have owned and used a lot of Sony cameras. None of them, regardless of whatever the latest specification du jour might be, has ever produced the quality of the Leica cameras.

 

Leica M and R lenses on the SL outperform any other adaptation of the same lenses ... I know this from my own direct experience. Autofocus is irrelevant with them ... If you want/need autofocus and image stabilization, and are using an SL, buy the SL lenses. Then you get the whole deal. 

 

Great cameras are more than just specifications.

[bencychin]

Yes. 

 

The SL is a finer camera than anything Sony has ever produced. I have owned and used a lot of Sony cameras. None of them, regardless of whatever the latest specification du jour might be, has ever produced the quality of the Leica cameras.

 

Leica M and R lenses on the SL outperform any other adaptation of the same lenses ... I know this from my own direct experience. Autofocus is irrelevant with them ... If you want/need autofocus and image stabilization, and are using an SL, buy the SL lenses. Then you get the whole deal. 

 

Great cameras are more than just specifications.

+1

Absolutely true with M & R lens on SL Body - also from my experience. 

[harryzet]

all the photojournalists are switching to sony a9 - like david burnett oder david hume kennerly. if its good enoght for them, it will be good enough for us amateurs.

[meerec]

all the photojournalists are switching to sony a9 - like david burnett oder david hume kennerly. if its good enoght for them, it will be good enough for us amateurs.

It’s good for them for other reasons than for me. I don’t look to them to copy them.

I used digital Canons for 20 years, then Fuji and Sony. I don’t miss them at all.

Moved on to Leica and Hasselblad. And there’s no going back.

[Chaemono]

‘Good enough’ is like ‘good job.’ “There are no two words in the English language more harmful than ‘good job’.” - Whiplash (2014). They connote mediocrity.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[harryzet]

‘Good enough’ is like ‘good job.’ “There are no two words in the English language more harmful than ‘good job’.” - Whiplash (2014). They connote mediocrity.

 

kennerly and burnett won the pulitzerprice. you?