IS the SL still worth buying in 2018?

[kyearwood]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have littrally just (3 day's ago) traded in my M9 for a SL (and Q, but thats another story...).  There is some great advise above as to the technical and financial arguments in favour and against the SL so I won't comment on that.  

 

Almost uniquely, buying a Leica, any Leica is a choice made with the heart rather than the head, tech sheet or price tag.  For me there is no one on earth who could make a convincing argument as to why one should invest so much money on a Leica camera with a price tag 3x and invariably less technical capability than many of its competitors.  

 

However, and its a BIG HOWEVER!  Nothing in the word gives me the same emotional response to image making quite like a Leica, my first was a M6 then I moved to the M7, using these cameras encouraged me to learn how to develop my own film, my final M was the wonderful but flawed M9.  

 

It's a question of priorities, if ones first goal is to shoot with the most advanced camera or, if financial prudence out weighs all other considerations, then look elsewhere.  If, as I suspect may be true (why else would one be in this forum) you have been captivated by the images gifted to us by many of the worlds greatest photographer and photo journalists down the ages and are enthralled by the story behind Leica, then yes the SL is still worthwhile and relevant in 2018, as are any number of wonderful cameras & lens available from Leica.  

 

Ultimately only the buyer can justify a Leica, but be warned, once you do it will be hard to ever go back to the arguable superior but soulless alternatives... 

Edited July 2, 2018 by kyearwood

[Advertisement]

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

[tgdinamo]

I have littrally just (3 day's ago) traded in my M9 for a SL (and Q, but thats another story...).  There is some great advise above as to the technical and financial arguments in favour and against the SL so I won't comment on that.  

 

Almost uniquely, buying a Leica, any Leica is a choice made with the heart rather than the head, tech sheet or price tag.  For me there is no one on earth who could make a convincing argument as to why one should invest so much money on a Leica camera with a price tag 3x and invariably less technical capability than many of its competitors.  

 

However, and its a BIG HOWEVER!  Nothing in the word gives me the same emotional response to image making quite like a Leica, my first was a M6 then I moved to the M7, using these cameras encouraged me to learn how to develop my own film, my final M was the wonderful but flawed M9.  

 

It's a question of priorities, if ones first goal is to shoot with the most advanced camera or, if financial prudence out weighs all other considerations, then look elsewhere.  If, as I suspect may be true (why else would one be in this forum) you have been captivated by the images gifted to us by many of the worlds greatest photographer and photo journalists down the ages and are enthralled by the story behind Leica, then yes the SL is still worthwhile and relevant in 2018, as are any number of wonderful cameras & lens available from Leica.  

 

Ultimately only the buyer can justify a Leica, but be warned, once you do it will be hard to ever go back to the arguable superior but soulless alternatives... 

 

I agree, except soulless can never be superior.

[sillbeers15]

I am looking forward to the arrival of SL2.

[Steve McGarrett]

Not all Leica lenses are FLE - 75/2, 50/1.4 ASPH, 35/1.4 ASPH (2010), 28/1.4, 24/1.4, 21/1.4 all have floating lens elements. The 16-18-21mm f/4 Tri-Elmar-M ASPH uses internal focusing - in its action, this is a pair of floating elements. 

 

With ANY Leica lens, just moving its distance from the sensor/film plane may cause a very slight image degradation. Whether or not you see it in your pictures depends on which lens you're using, how much enlargement you're using, contrast enhancement in post, your taste in micro-contrast aka sharpness, and a variety of other things. 

 

You may not notice it

 

No, just with FLE or IF lenses.

[Distagon]

You know the sun doesn't rise, right.

 

It's the earth turning.

 

The world isn't flat anymore.

Describing the sun as rising depends entirely on the frame of reference one chooses, not on whether the Earth is flat (as it clearly is).

[Clactonian]

Yes.

Sorry, you asked a simple question and there's a simple answer.

[db24fps]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Did you decide to go for it in the end, Nick?

 

 

I'm giving careful thought to getting an SL myself. I've put a lot of paid work to one side for the last couple of years due to health reasons and also having dedicated time caring for a family member, but am slowly beginning to find my feet again. I sold off my dSLR equipment many years ago having used it alongside an M9, then I worked exclusively with an M240 for a while after that but a poor customer service experience with Leica and that camera left me rather cold and feeling rather lost about my feelings toward the company, so I turned to Fuji for a while, retaining nothing of Leica beyond my trusty old M2 and rigid summicron. That was a bitter experience with the M240 repair, one that still leaves me wary of ever even considering an M10 despite how impressed I've been when I had a hands on play with one. I miss the experience of an M very much. The embarrassment with the M240 was a few years ago now, and towards the end of last year I did soften my feelings somewhat having acquired a Q which I've become immensely fond of, and something certainly clicked for me having briefly tried the SL last year as well (chunky as it is, I definitely fall into the camp who considers the interface to be ingenious).

 

I suppose I'm in a situation where I am looking at all the full frame options out there from Canon, Nikon and Sony, adding the cost of decent glass..etc and finding they're not that far removed from the SL as far as financial investment is concerned, at least if I wasn't going to invest in SL glass right away (if at all), as I'm very much taken with the prospect of using M lenses with one instead. 50mm has often been my go to focal length and my summicron has become something of an ornament on my M2 as I don't really invest in shooting and processing film anymore, and I hate it when wonderful pieces of engineering like that are just sitting around. So, being wary of having an M again, retaining the Q for personal/travel duties and considering the SL for portraiture commissions...etc seems like the more intriguing and versatile option to consider. I could then grow my M lens collection again over time (whilst kicking myself for parting with the 90mm Elmarit-M when I got rid of the M240) both for purposes with the SL and, perhaps someday an M again should I ever have the financial means to justify one again.

[RomeoBravo]

I have been critical of the SL since the day it was released.  I just could not understand the idea of such a massive/heavy 24mp camera (and lenses).  It seemed to be such a departure from the M and Q.  However, being pleasantly surprised by the Q's AF (which is so much better than anyone gives it credit for) and image quality, I bought a CL.  The CL paired with the 35/1.4 TL is really a great camera.  So, knowing I was traveling to LA, I planned a trip to the Leica store (I've never actually been to one).

I was allowed to put my own card in the SL paired with a 75 SL lens.  I compared it to my Sony a7R III and 85/1.4 G Master.  The SL trounced the Sony combo in every way except for weight, buffer depth, and 10fps C-AF.  The Sony has more accurate 10 fps AF, while the 7 fps C-AF of the SL was excellent.  The buffer depth of the Sony is a LOT better.  

However, the Leica combo absolutely blew me away with it's BEAUTIFUL skin tones.  Also the Leica shots where sharper, and had MUCH more micro-contrast.  Moreover, I have LOVED the eye-AF in the Sony.  However, in a 3 shot burst taken with each camera, Leica's Face Detect focused on my wife's eye BETTER than Sony's eye-detect (which hit her eyebrow on all 3 shots).  These shots where all shot raw, at f2, and the same ISO/SS. 

Two days later, I ordered a Leica SL, and will sell all of my Sony gear as soon as I get back to Dallas.

I have put up with Sony's AWFUL skin tones for long enough.  My advice to all photographers from now on - if you shoot people, DON'T BUY A SONY!

The Sony is better than every other mirrorless FF camera on the market when comparing spec sheets.  It does everything well - except take pretty pictures.

[LD_50]

So you were critical of the SL from day one without trying it and now you’re critical of the Sony, to the point of telling people it doesn’t work for photos of people? It all seems pretty hyperbolic and dramatic.

 

I shoot the SL and also own a Sony RX1 an MP240. I used to shoot Nikons. They all serve a purpose. There are great photos of people, landscapes, and every other subject shot with Sony A series cameras, Leicas, and every other brand.

 

Your experience is probably the learning point for others, without the hyperbole. Try the system before passing judgement.

[RomeoBravo]

So you were critical of the SL from day one without trying it and now you’re critical of the Sony, to the point of telling people it doesn’t work for photos of people? It all seems pretty hyperbolic and dramatic.

 

I shoot the SL and also own a Sony RX1 an MP240. I used to shoot Nikons. They all serve a purpose. There are great photos of people, landscapes, and every other subject shot with Sony A series cameras, Leicas, and every other brand.

 

Your experience is probably the learning point for others, without the hyperbole. Try the system before passing judgement.

First, I had no opportunity to try a Leica SL.  There is no Camera dealer in the Dallas area that carries the SL.  Second, why would I have to try one to judge its size and weight?  I said that's what I was critical of.

Yes, great photos of people have been captured on Sony's - I've captured thousands of beautiful shots with the Sony's I've owned.  But they took a lot of work in post to make the skin tones look good.

Yes I'm being dramatic, because I have wasted hours and hours editing Sony skin tones.  I'm flat out mad!

[Mr.Q]

I had a very similar experience. I used to shoot with Sony and I was very unhappy with their skin tones. (admittedly, I've never been good at processing color in post) Around that time I purchased a Leica Q and was blown away with it's color and beautiful rendering. I looked into replacing my Sony kit with a Leica kit, but I immediately wrote off the SL for it's size/weight and lens offering. (I believe they only had 2 native lenses at the time) So I started off with a M9-P followed by a M10 then my eyes failed on me earlier this year.  RF focusing was no longer possible, so I moved onto the SL (briefly tried out the CL, which I wasn't too fond of) with the M lenses I have accumulated over 3 years. I couldn't be happier. I think the SL images have even better colors than the M10. For general photography I use Fuji and an assortment of zooms.  I know for certain that I would never go back to Sony.

[Jeff S]

First, I had no opportunity to try a Leica SL. There is no Camera dealer in the Dallas area that carries the SL.

Rental.

 

Jeff

[RomeoBravo]

Rental.

 

Jeff

I'm not sure if you think you're being helpful, or if you are being trite - but I'm just gonna let you know - I don't find this helpful.  

Unless... are you offering to pay the rental fee of the next camera I feel is too big, but am also slightly interested in?

I'm glad people are focusing on the pertinent info in my post - which actually pertains to the topic of this thread.

Edited August 29, 2018 by RomeoBravo

[LD_50]

I'm not sure if you think you're being helpful, or if you are being trite - but I'm just gonna let you know - I don't find this helpful.

Unless... are you offering to pay the rental fee of the next camera I feel is too big, but am also slightly interested in?

I'm glad people are focusing on the pertinent info in my post - which actually pertains to the topic of this thread.

I was focusing on what I deemed pertinent in your post. You tried the SL system and found it was worth buying in 2018. I would recommend everyone learn from your experience and try a system before judging it. Spec sheets are useful but don’t tell the whole story. The hyperbole could easily lead to poor decisions.

[RomeoBravo]

I had a very similar experience. I used to shoot with Sony and I was very unhappy with their skin tones. (admittedly, I've never been good at processing color in post) Around that time I purchased a Leica Q and was blown away with it's color and beautiful rendering. I looked into replacing my Sony kit with a Leica kit, but I immediately wrote off the SL for it's size/weight and lens offering. (I believe they only had 2 native lenses at the time) So I started off with a M9-P followed by a M10 then my eyes failed on me earlier this year.  RF focusing was no longer possible, so I moved onto the SL (briefly tried out the CL, which I wasn't too fond of) with the M lenses I have accumulated over 3 years. I couldn't be happier. I think the SL images have even better colors than the M10. For general photography I use Fuji and an assortment of zooms.  I know for certain that I would never go back to Sony.

Yes very similar using similar gear.  For the record, I was not very good at precessing color in post when I first got an a7RII - but I eventually learned.  

[RomeoBravo]

I was focusing on what I deemed pertinent in your post. You tried the SL system and found it was worth buying in 2018. I would recommend everyone learn from your experience and try a system before judging it. Spec sheets are useful but don’t tell the whole story. The hyperbole could easily lead to poor decisions.

Understood, and agreed.  Thanks for clarifying.  I hope others can learn from my mistakes too - that's why I posted my experience.

[sdw]

For me, the SL's weight and size is an advantage. I find the Sony bodies too small and unergonomic. 

 

Totally agree on all other fronts: Sony A7* series cameras are superb, on paper. The best cameras, in pure specs. But in experience, and actual results, I've found I enjoyed Leica (and even Canon) cameras a lot better. 

 

Is it worth buying in 2018? At a reduced rate (I paid less than $4000 for mine), I think absolutely. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by sdw

[helged]

For me, the SL's weight and size is an advantage. I find the Sony bodies too small and unergonomic. 

 

Totally agree on all other fronts: Sony A7* series cameras are superb, on paper. The best cameras, in pure specs. But in experience, and actual results, I've found I enjoyed Leica (and even Canon) cameras a lot better. 

 

Is it worth buying in 2018? At a reduced rate (I paid less than $4000 for mine), I think absolutely. 

 

 

+1 for the size of the SL!

 

For me/my hands, as an example, the CL-body is too small; the M-bodies are fine with small/low weight lenses but on the small side with e.g. 28Lux-M, 50Noct or 90Cron-M; whereas the SL is fine. Yes, the SL could be “less brutal....more elegant”, as Dr. Kaufmann expressed in a recent LuLa interview, but the size is about correct. For me.

 

In general terms, Leica will not top the spec-list, although important exceptions exist (like the introduction of the M8, S, and SL, including the SLs EVF until today). Those of us that can accept/live with some years lag on the spec list will, during the 'waiting' time, enjoy the fabulous Leica optics. 

 

Yes, I look forward seeing the SL2. But I enjoy using the SL for most of my shooting. And the SL primes are, simply,  s u p e r b  (not to say that the SL zooms are bad; they are very, very fine as well...).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[lx1713]

Yes, skin tones under difficult lighting and better still, blending in flash doesn't give me an awful look. I attribute it to Leica's colour science.

I suspect they pack more colour bits in the human skin colour spectrum.

 

I had a chance to shoot the S6 with the SL last year. Both were great, I mistook the S6's shots for the SL and was wowed by the S6 but on comparison I felt that as beautiful as the S6 files were, the SL wasn't far off.

 

If you want to be efficient, the SL does save a lot of time in post for an event photographer. 

[Jeff S]

I'm not sure if you think you're being helpful, or if you are being trite - but I'm just gonna let you know - I don't find this helpful.

Unless... are you offering to pay the rental fee of the next camera I feel is too big, but am also slightly interested in?

I'm glad people are focusing on the pertinent info in my post - which actually pertains to the topic of this thread.

You wrote that you “had no opportunity to try an SL”, and I pointed out one such opportunity. Even if you are offended, others have been unaware of rental services and have been appreciative of the feedback and inquired about specifics. There are also other out of state dealers that are sometimes willing to arrange trials for camera gear, especially if they have a demo in stock.

 

In hindsight, wouldn’t you have rather spent a few bucks to test a new system before being so mad that you deemed it necessary to kick yourself here? Maybe you didn’t learn any lesson about pre-judging gear and assuming it’s all about perceived weight and size.

 

Jeff