leica sl2 Jono Slack: Leica SL2 Review

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, 2M6TTLs said:

I only take JPEG images.( I can hear the hordes screaming at me) To tell the truth I'm happy with them, and I truly hate all this jiggery pokery with sensor types, layers. number of pixels, post processing, Lightroom, Adobe and all that stuff. It's the reason it took me so long to even get a digital camera. I'm old school. Do all my composing and adjustments as much as possible in camera as as little as possible after that. Hate spending time in post on the computer, takes too long.Bearing this in mind, in your honest opinion, would it still be worth me getting an SL2? I would be using mostly M lenses on it ( I've a few including the 135 Apo-Telyt,) and also add a couple of L mount lenses later. I know I would love the finder and the simplicity of menus on the SL2, also the weatherproofing and build quality. Also ,am I right in thinking the JPEGS from this camera are 24MP, or are they also 48MP? It's either this camera or a CL, but I'm thinking it's nicer veto have full frame than APS-C.

 

 

6 hours ago, michali said:

I agree with you! I shoot both RAW & Jpeg, my view is that if an image is not good enough when it's captured, it's not worth keeping.  No amount post-processing can turn a marginal or crap image into a decent one. I would far rather spend the time taking pictures than sitting behind a computer post-processing images. 

I have both the SL601 and the CL, there's almost no discernible difference in IQ. IMO with the advances in sensor technology, the debate about FF and APSC is largely irrelevant these days.  Whether you want to get an SL2 comes down to your style of photography and what you want to carry around with you. 

 

Hi There

I think that if you are not going to do much post processing anyway - then JPG only is the way to go (certainly not one of the screaming hordes here!). I know that there are a lot of people shooting jpg only, and it’s clearly very much up in Leica’s priorities to get them right (and IMHO on the SL2 they have done just that).

I actually tried shooting a couple of small events on jpg only with the SL2, and found that the results were just fine;

2M6TTLS (snappy little name  ) I really think that it IS worth getting the SL2 even if you’re only shooting jpg.  The results are great - you can choose whether to shoot 24mp or 47mp files. I also think that the SL2 is a great solution for shooting with M lenses - I’m planning an article on this in the near future, but it has a number of advantages over the SL, which makes it a joy (I envy you your 135 in this context).

I hope this helps

 

[jonoslack]

2 hours ago, helged said:

Regarding choosing output in RAW only, or RAW+JPG: Does the preview image differ in colour and/or resolution if you shoot the SL2 in RAW, or RAW+JPG? 

Hi Helged

No - you don’t have to shoot both - the embedded jpg in the RAW file allows full zooming  on reviewing the image (and previewing it). Unlike Panasonic, who embed a small jpg, which means that if you don’t shoot RAW+JPG you can’t really check for critical focus after the event. 

[hillavoider]

Thanks for the review, do you know if Leica will address the focus point not being sharp with a half press on the shutter? did this affect your opinion of the camera at all? thanks 

[Jeff S]

18 hours ago, michali said:

I agree with you! I shoot both RAW & Jpeg, my view is that if an image is not good enough when it's captured, it's not worth keeping.  No amount post-processing can turn a marginal or crap image into a decent one. I would far rather spend the time taking pictures than sitting behind a computer post-processing images. 

 

 

Choice is good.  And I agree that a crappy pic will remain a crappy pic.  But, for me, the goal is always a great print of a print-worthy image. And in the 40+ years I’ve been shooting and making prints, I can’t recall a single finally framed and displayed print that didn’t involve some sort of PP, film or digital.  A little or a lot, but always something.  

Often the difference between a good print and and a wonderful print, one that ‘sings’, is a tweak here or there (along with proper display lighting). Nobody cares, including me, the amount of effort required; only the end result matters. Toward that end, I always shoot RAW/DNG, as I want the choice to change or delete information, not have it dictated by a machine. Same with MP: I don’t always need it, but I’d rather have the option to reduce it; there’s never the option to add it after the fact. But there’s of course no right or wrong, and different goals can dictate different methods, but that’s my approach.  

Ansel Adams printed his famous ‘Moonrise’ dramatically differently over a 34 year period as his tastes and preferences changed (adding significant contrast and drama, particularly to the initially lighter sky).  Fortunately he always had the original negative to use and reinterpret.  That certainly doesn’t mean the image was crap straight out of the camera and printed straight (even then requiring choices for developer, paper and print size.) As he always said, “the negative is the score, and the print is the performance.” For me, a digital file is merely the replacement for a film negative, so saving the best original is always my way to go.  

Jeff

[Guest Nowhereman]

I have no experience at all shooting JPGs and, therefore, wonder how you deal with protecting highlights, particularly when shooting into the light, or with strong sidelight, when you have no DNGs on which you can lift the shadows susbtantially. I suppose you can do what we did when shooting slide films, expose for the highlights — but that seems excessively limiting considering what can be done with DNGs. Perhaps I should try shooting DNG + JPG.

Incidentally, in addition to the M10, I have a Ricoh GRIII, which has some interesting in-camera JPG post-processing features that I haven't tried.
_________________________
Frog Leaping photo book

[Tailwagger]

Totally agree with Jeff S.

You paid big money for all those extra bits, why waste them? More to the point, outside of saving memory or increasing your burst rates, there is no compelling reason not to shoot raw. LR, C1 or any of the other raft of available processing tools will auto-develop a JPEG for you the moment the file is imported. You can be just as quick to a result with a DNG as you are with a JPEG.

In my world, at least half of the process of shotmaking is assessing the scene and deciding just how the exposure will be handled when I go to process it. I try to imagine what the final result(s) can be, given the back end tools I can apply. The more I've focused my thoughts around the potential outcomes while in the act of shooting, the more satisfying the final outcomes have become. Equally, the more experience I've gain in manipulating things via the development process, the bigger the bag o' tricks I've discovered to improve the way to shoot a given scene. That learning has paid big dividends, particularly when working under difficult conditions. I haven't the slightest doubt that whatever skill I have on the front end has markedly improved as a result of all the lessons learned on the back.

No serious photographer would cede control to an algorithm to make the simplest of decisions such as selecting the f stop and shutter speed. Why then, in a far more complex situation where there exists a nearly infinite number of possible outcomes, would that same photographer rely solely on lines of code to determine how to process the final result?

[Mr.Q]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The only time I shoot JPEG is when I shoot motorsport with my A9. I could end up with 5,000-10,000 images in a matter of 2-3 hours, and DNG's would be a nightmare to handle.  Fortunately the exposure rarely needs to be adjusted so I just make sure my settings are correct with the first few shots and shoot away. In every other situation I shoot RAW or DNG.

[2M6TTLs]

On 11/18/2019 at 9:56 PM, jonoslack said:

 

Hi There

I think that if you are not going to do much post processing anyway - then JPG only is the way to go (certainly not one of the screaming hordes here!). I know that there are a lot of people shooting jpg only, and it’s clearly very much up in Leica’s priorities to get them right (and IMHO on the SL2 they have done just that).

I actually tried shooting a couple of small events on jpg only with the SL2, and found that the results were just fine;

2M6TTLS (snappy little name  ) I really think that it IS worth getting the SL2 even if you’re only shooting jpg.  The results are great - you can choose whether to shoot 24mp or 47mp files. I also think that the SL2 is a great solution for shooting with M lenses - I’m planning an article on this in the near future, but it has a number of advantages over the SL, which makes it a joy (I envy you your 135 in this context).

I hope this helps

 

That helps tremendously because it confirms my thought process, I'll be able to take 24mp files and save 47mp for when (or if ) I really need it.  Yes the 135 has been waiting especially for this very camera I think. 😜I can predict an SL2 will be my Christmas present to myself this year and might even get me excited enough to get out in the cold and take some snowy landscapes! I mean I have to test the weatherproofing right? Thanks for responding, and all the best to you and everyone reading, for the coming festive season!

[caissa]

Jonos review is very nice and excellent for artists. For the more technical minded user Mr. Wong has just published a video of 30 minutes about the SL2. He had it for several days and goes into details like AF and IBIS and compares also to Lumix S cameras. And finally also talks about the SL2 as the best modern M camera ....   

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by caissa

[Chaemono]

vor 35 Minuten schrieb caissa:

Jonos review is very nice and excellent for artists. For the more technical minded user Mr. Wong has just published a video of 30 minutes about the SL2. He had it for several days and goes into details like AF and IBIS and compares also to Lumix S cameras. And finally also talks about the SL2 as the best modern M camera ....   

 

He states that he’s using a pre-production model. 

[NRKstudio]

Just an update to the Leica SL2 preorder people: I just bought an SL2 off of the Leica USA page without a preorder, deposit, or private link. I purchased it around 10am Central and it shipped about 30 minutes later. Good source of SL2's if you all are interested.

[Mr.Q]

LOL wow.

[SrMi]

27 minutes ago, NRKstudio said:

Just an update to the Leica SL2 preorder people: I just bought an SL2 off of the Leica USA page without a preorder, deposit, or private link. I purchased it around 10am Central and it shipped about 30 minutes later. Good source of SL2's if you all are interested.

Yes, I noticed that too a while ago. However, it is now marked as on backorder.

[Jeff S]

On 11/21/2019 at 2:37 AM, 2M6TTLs said:

That helps tremendously because it confirms my thought process, I'll be able to take 24mp files and save 47mp for when (or if ) I really need it.  

The problem arises if you only make that determination AFTER you’ve already completed the shoot (assuming you don’t have both JPG and DNG), and determine that you have an unpredictably nice image, or one you need to crop extensively , or one you’d like to print bigger than anticipated, or one you’d like to edit more extensively than predicted. Those situations aren’t rare for me.  And storage is cheap...peanuts compared to an SL2.  YMMV.

[Jeff S]

On 11/19/2019 at 7:30 PM, Tailwagger said:

Totally agree with Jeff S.

You paid big money for all those extra bits, why waste them? More to the point, outside of saving memory or increasing your burst rates, there is no compelling reason not to shoot raw. LR, C1 or any of the other raft of available processing tools will auto-develop a JPEG for you the moment the file is imported. You can be just as quick to a result with a DNG as you are with a JPEG.

In my world, at least half of the process of shotmaking is assessing the scene and deciding just how the exposure will be handled when I go to process it. I try to imagine what the final result(s) can be, given the back end tools I can apply. The more I've focused my thoughts around the potential outcomes while in the act of shooting, the more satisfying the final outcomes have become. Equally, the more experience I've gain in manipulating things via the development process, the bigger the bag o' tricks I've discovered to improve the way to shoot a given scene. That learning has paid big dividends, particularly when working under difficult conditions. I haven't the slightest doubt that whatever skill I have on the front end has markedly improved as a result of all the lessons learned on the back.

No serious photographer would cede control to an algorithm to make the simplest of decisions such as selecting the f stop and shutter speed. Why then, in a far more complex situation where there exists a nearly infinite number of possible outcomes, would that same photographer rely solely on lines of code to determine how to process the final result?

Those lessons got drilled into my head in film days, when improper exposure or composition made it really hard on the guy in the darkroom.... me.  The process of editing pics does indeed prove invaluable, as photography essentially depends on developing a good eye and exercising good judgment, at every step from shot selection to displayed print.

Jeff

[Macberg]

@jonoslack Thank you for all the valuable information, I really enjoy reading your precise descriptions!

I have a rather special question. Is it possible to use a UHS-II-card for RAWs in one slot and a (fast) UHS-I-card for JPGs in the other cardslot without losing too much performance?
My idea/hope is that, of course, you need the UHS-II-card for the huge RAW-files whereas when simultaneously writing the smaller JPG-files to a (fast) UHS-I-card in the other cardslot, this might not make much of a difference performancewise, or does it? As there still is a quite big price-difference between UHS-II and UHS-I-cards, this question might be interesting for many photographers. As an example, for  a Sandisk Extreme Pro 64 GB card, you would pay 86,16€ (UHS-II) vs. 22,99€ (UHS-I, 170mb/s).
Another advantage is, that you would have more space on the UHS-II-card for the huge RAW-files as the JPGs are written on the UHS-I-card only.

Oh, and I know it is risky not to simlutaneously write RAW+JPG on both cards (with the second RAW+JPG couple as a backup), but maybe this might still be an interesting question, e.g. for Artin...😉

Edited November 23, 2019 by Macberg

[thighslapper]

I doubt if you are going to see much difference whichever cards you use ...... unless you are shooting off continuous bursts of dozens of images or recording video.

I have a 120mb XQD in one slot on my S1R and a cheapo slow 128mb SD in the other and there are no observable performance difference for still images, whether mirrored or JPG to one and RAW to the other. I 'd be very surprised if the functionality of the SL2 is significantly different regarding this, irrespective of what is recommended. 

The main limitations in the past have been the cameras processing power, speed and buffering rather than the card speed itself. 

[jonoslack]

11 hours ago, Macberg said:

@jonoslack Thank you for all the valuable information, I really enjoy reading your precise descriptions!

I have a rather special question. Is it possible to use a UHS-II-card for RAWs in one slot and a (fast) UHS-I-card for JPGs in the other cardslot without losing too much performance?
My idea/hope is that, of course, you need the UHS-II-card for the huge RAW-files whereas when simultaneously writing the smaller JPG-files to a (fast) UHS-I-card in the other cardslot, this might not make much of a difference performancewise, or does it? As there still is a quite big price-difference between UHS-II and UHS-I-cards, this question might be interesting for many photographers. As an example, for  a Sandisk Extreme Pro 64 GB card, you would pay 86,16€ (UHS-II) vs. 22,99€ (UHS-I, 170mb/s).
Another advantage is, that you would have more space on the UHS-II-card for the huge RAW-files as the JPGs are written on the UHS-I-card only.

Oh, and I know it is risky not to simlutaneously write RAW+JPG on both cards (with the second RAW+JPG couple as a backup), but maybe this might still be an interesting question, e.g. for Artin...😉

Hi There

I haven't tried this, but I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem.

best

[bilbrown]

On 11/6/2019 at 8:52 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

The SL2 does look a good video option, but the fp, on paper at least, is probably better (I haven't properly tried it yet), and the size (same as the TL2) is very attractive as a second L full frame body. Not as good in the hand though, and the SL2 interface looks good.

The FP *IS* In fact a better video option as I have had one for a couple of weeks now. The S1 comes close, and both of these options don’t have the resolution overkill of a high-MP sensor.

 

As The review states, and I stated, the SL2 replaces like 3 of my cameras (if you include the S, which I am here but I don’t really). But those cameras kind of don’t need replacing. 
 

I do prefer Leica color science and menus over Panasonic, but the Sigma are really close - and it’s actually a pocket cinema camera! Not 5k, but then for that high of a video resolution I want something that has some bulk to it. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[giampo]

Hello, first of all thanks fornthe always beautiful review, expecially the one on your on web site where it is much more enjoyable to read and watch at the photo. 

I have my SL2 since yesterday, I know that is really early to think about this but when it will come the time to wet clean the sensor, usually less tahn once a year for me, do you know the correct procedure to do so? I’m a little concerned about this because of the ibis. 

I know sony has a specific function on the camera menu and you have to do it with the camera turned on. 

At the Leica store they could not help me with this yet, and I haven’t found anything on the manual either.

My guess would be to turn the ibis off and then wet clean it when is still turned on, just like the sony, in that way the sensor should be blocked and firm ???

Have you had any experience or  information about it ?

Thanks