Would you now buy an SL for $3500 or an SL2 for $6000?

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

34 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

 I'd use a razor blade for a shutter release if I thought it would result in a better photograph.

 

Ouch, that puts sharpness in a whole new perspective.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[jankap]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Tailwagger:

I continue to hold out hope that Leica will produce a native M mount, EVF-based camera. But that has never seemed all that likely and in any case it's not available today. There are still plenty of damn good reasons to shoot with an M, but with a few minor exceptions, they no longer seem to apply to me, at least as I see things today. 

I am also thinking this way. But... an SL with an M adapter is an EVF-based M. The SL sensor is not optimized for M lenses perhaps. Is a Leica T with the full frame sensor of the M10  and a Visoflex connection better?

[tom0511]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb Tailwagger:

Yes, at least for the time being. Whether or not I'll actual sell the 10 or 240 remains to be seen, but it certainly is under consideration at this point. Why?

First is just the sheer pain of maintenance coupled with the wait times. I shoot 15 to 20K+ frames a year and the RF all too regularly requires tweaking. This coupled with the fact that my eye sight isn't what it used to be means its time to consider moving on from the Ms as my primary camera.

Second, I bought into the M system not so much for the RF experience as for the breath of the optics and the palette they provide. The SL2 provides a bridge from past to future with the ability to shoot Mandler masterpieces right along side those of Karbe. I passed on the original SL as, at that time, while there was a little tingle, I was not sufficiently moved by the optics on offer. Beyond that, from an acuity standpoint, the original SL, from an M lens perspective, offered nothing over the M10 and so there was no incentive. Time has changed all that. The new Summicron primes are peerless, the files coming out of the SL2 are to die for, both from a resolution standpoint, but also, for what to my eye, seems natural, yet extraordinarily deep, subtle color. Some folks value the shooting experience to a point where they simply can't imagine shooting with anything other than an M. I fully respect that, but I'm totally about the final result; I'd use a razor blade for a shutter release if I thought it would result in a better photograph.

Finally, the SL system is simply far more flexible.  Beyond the new primes, one can now actually reasonably entertain the thought of shooting with long lenses, zooms, ultra-wides etc. Certainly, with the EVF, the M can as well, but it's far more cumbersome. And then there is IBIS. Up until last night, I could have cared less about it. After an hour shooting in the dark and rain, it was an absolute revelation. The ability to shoot at base ISO, handholding successfully with exposure times literally over a second... whoa.  It opens up a new world in terms of what is possible. And that, BTW, is why, purely in retrospect, I would choose it over the original and if I found the price too steep, I'd buy a Pano. 

Why then for the time being? Well, I've no intention of selling my M optics and I continue to hold out hope that Leica will produce a native M mount, EVF-based camera. But that has never seemed all that likely and in any case it's not available today. There are still plenty of damn good reasons to shoot with an M, but with a few minor exceptions, they no longer seem to apply to me, at least as I see things today. 

YMMV, of course. All the best.

I agree with many of your points. I am a long time M-shooter, but since getting the SL and now SL2 I am using the M less and less. The simplicity with the M combined with the viewfinder is still a different and great photographic experience, but on the other side quite limited mainly to wide angle up to 50mm, 75mm is ok but allready slows me down to get accurate focus.

The SL with face detection, AF, IBIS etc. gives me a very high rate of totally accurate focus and speed to catch the moment. I hesistatet long to buy SL primes because of the price, but now own 35/50/75 SL and  it makes me use the M even less.

I think the M will allways have its own territory, but the SL/SL2 has become a very very flexible tool. And from all DSLR/Mirrorless I know it is the one which comes closest to the M in regards of simple user interface and solid/robust Bauhaus-style build quality.

[BernardC]

4 hours ago, jankap said:

I am also thinking this way. But... an SL with an M adapter is an EVF-based M. The SL sensor is not optimized for M lenses perhaps. Is a Leica T with the full frame sensor of the M10  and a Visoflex connection better?

I agree. I think that Leica will eventually release the "EVF M" that some people say they want, but it will have an L-Mount. In other words, it will be either a "smaller SL," or a "full-frame CL," or a "Q with interchangeable lenses."

Why dilute the M's appeal with a half-baked product when they can offer an AF-compatible camera that more people will want to buy?

Of course, Sigma could release this camera first by adding an EVF to the fp! Maybe an ambitious third party will make an fp cage that adds a small EVF and looks like an M3! That would certainly be less ridiculous than putting an M plastic case on your iPhone.

In the meanwhile, we all get by with the half-dozen or so perfectly good options that are already available for M lenses.

[Raid Amin]

I view our options in Leica equipment as excellent. This does not imply that it is manageable cost wise to buy the very best cameras and lenses.

 

If I had a photography business with real income from it, I would buy the latest AF equipment with IS. 

 

Else, there really is no need for any new buy of cameras or lenses if you already own good lenses and a well working camera or two.

Not everything is decided by MP numbers. 

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, jankap said:

I am also thinking this way. But... an SL with an M adapter is an EVF-based M. The SL sensor is not optimized for M lenses perhaps. Is a Leica T with the full frame sensor of the M10  and a Visoflex connection better?

This assertion that the SL  is the EVF M has been made for many years by a number of people on this board, many of whom I hold in the highest esteem. But in this case, I think at best they take this position as they believe it is the only pragmatic path forward for a concern as small as Leica. That may very well be the financial reality, but, for me it is an overly simplistic solution as I believe this is a multi-layered problem. 

First and foremost, I find it quite hard to pay upwards of $12.5K and beyond for a lens I must fit with an adapter. Not merely out of a vague sense of potential loss of image quality, but equally for the sheer inconvenience of it. I will add that perhaps part of my refusal to rely on this route is due to childhood trauma.

Years ago, I had Fuji XT and a pair of Pentax 645s, so I bought an adapter to mount the Pentax glass on the Fuji. I got a great E-Bay deal from Japan on mint Pentax 120mm macro and so naturally I wanted to check out its performance on the XT once it arrived. Unfortunately, although I thought the lens was doubly locked in, it wasn't. Within an hour of its arrival, it slipped its earthly bonds, fell four feet onto a tile floor and was summarily dispatch to where ever lenses go to die. Very painful. Now multiply that by the cost of Leica optics. A possibility, I'd prefer not to entertain.

To avoid that you either need to, as Jaapv once suggested, crazy glue the adapter to camera, in which case you'll not be using any L-glass. Assuming you intend to use glass from both systems, utilizing adapters become a simple speed and basic clumsiness issue. You are now juggling three elements instead of two. Pulling a lens and adapter to change over to a native lens, then back to a different non-native lens when in the field is both time consuming and in my view, a similar accident waiting to happen. Perhaps were the adapters more reasonably priced, buying two or three extras might solve the basic issue, but they ain't. As it is, I'l likely buy a second used one and call it a day as I typically carry three lenses. But I wonder, if Jono is listening, what his reasons are for saying that while they work very well on the SL, he largely leaves M lenses to the M and Ls to the SL. My guess is that it related to this awkwardness, but I'll leave the explanation to him, if he cares to chime in.

Does anyone think that when buying a Z7 with an adapter that it is an 850?  No, they think, I want to move to mirrorless, I have a large investment in glass that I'll transition away from over time as more native glass comes available. Yeah, I'll keep my 400 or my 105 for a few years,  but everything else goes. And it's a similar situation when an M user transitions to an SL2. Despite sharing a large amount of the DNA, the M10 and SL2 are about as closely related to each other as you and I are to Lemurs.  The SLs, quite naturally, are far more complex cameras, generalist jack of all trade cameras. That reflects in the menus, the interface, the button count, the heat management, the heft for balance of natively large optics, all that.  It is overly simplistic to simply say slap your M lenses on an SL and you're there.  Doing so involves a set of compromises and at these $$$, I'm not overly fond of too much of that. So lets briefly imagine one possibility for what a new Leica EM-EVF might look like in the most minimalist of cases. 

No rear display, unnecessary. What's the need for a display? Frame, review, do menu changes through the finder. Video? Whats that? Buttons?  Beyond the now classic three back buttons, we get an ISO and program dial, on/off switch (bring back the C, just change the order to off - C -S), an EV wheel, maybe one or two  programable buttons and a shutter release.  Now consider, with none of those heavy expensive OVF optics of the M, no need to balance weight, large AF optics, no excess physical controls, just how compact and light might such a camera be? Might a next gen of M lenses become more intelligent?  RFIDs built into the mount, available for upgrade so that one could  id every lens ever produced? Given the reduced mechanical complexity, what would it cost? What other clever little tricks might be achievable if one were to re-imagine what a small, light, rock solid, manual focus EVF-based camera could look like in the context of this century, not the last? If any company could build such a camera and make it compelling, that company is Leica. My hope is someday they embrace such a challenge. But again, I'm not holding my breadth. As Kaufmann recently remarked, there will always be an M, and I'm glad of that. But my time to move on has arrived and if there is no EM on the horizon to compliment the M, my move toward the SL will likely be a permanent one. 

    

 

[jankap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If I want to go from A to B, I can take a bicycle or rent Ferrari. The result is the same. If I want to memorize a situation, I take a camera. My iPhone or another tool, the result ....

OK, to be honest my IIIf is not used very often any more.

The newest tool always shines, that is true. But for instance IBIS does not help me to take photos of my pets. Also, I don't want to fight with the enormous files delivered by a 54 Mp sensor.

And, in 3 to 5 years the next one comes around the corner shining with still more features. 

Tizian (16th century) created pictures without a camera and without an existing subject. Very beautiful creations. Here is an example, Lawrence is tortured.

The flag is the Austrian flag probably, for Venice Austria was part of the axis of evil then. The persons in the background can be the judges. Has somebody an idea, what he meant with the child (in green)? We could not solve this.

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!

Edited November 29, 2019 by jankap

[lanetomlane]

On 11/27/2019 at 8:57 PM, sillbeers15 said:

You also need to pay $100,000 for a Toyota Camry in Singapore.

Plus of course the COE (Certificate of Entitlement) and then it becomes scrap in 10 years. I lived in Singapore and suffered the cost of having a car.

[sillbeers15]

On 11/29/2019 at 5:56 AM, BernardC said:

In other words, there really isn't much of a problem with the SL or SL2 😉

I don't know about anyone else, but I find that the need for TTL flash disappeared with digital. It's just so easy to take a test exposure, see if your ratios are correct, make any necessary tweaks, and start shooting. The distance to the ceiling rarely changes, so you don't have to make adjustments while you are in the same room.

I guess some people like the HSS daylight flash look, but I never did. I only ever resort to that if the lighting ratio is completely out-of-control, and I can't move the subject.

Same thing with direct on-camera flash, which had a recent resurgence. I'll bet those hip fashion photographers used manual flash and CS lenses, though, so it's irrelevant to Leica's TTL.

 

I do not like HSS as it robs lots of strobe power. But I detest more when I do not get it. It differs from my choice not to use it. Leica is just not listening!

[Archiver]

I'm having similar mental discussions with myself, and leaving aside professional work, it comes down to what you want/need from these cameras, and if the technological improvements are worth another few thousand dollars.

SL files are already quite large, but SL2 files are massive. You'll be filling memory cards much faster, needing a lot more storage space if you shoot at the same rate, and require more of your computer. Are you willing to change and offload cards more, buy storage faster, upgrade your computer, or shoot less?

How much better is the SL2 viewfinder? Is the SL EVF good enough for you? Same with autofocus (if you get L mount lenses), colour, high ISO performance etc. How much better is the SL2, and is that difference worth a few thousand more?

Do you benefit from the extra video capabilities of the SL2? Is that even an issue for you? For most amateur and some professional needs, SL video quality and features are enough.

The SL2 is new and shiny and exciting, and when I held it at the shop, I had the feeling of 'ohhhh if only I could just slap down the plastic right now'. But budget and cooler heads prevailed. If I was to go down this path, I'd buy a secondhand SL in good condition and use M, R and other adapted lenses like Pentax and Minolta, and perhaps invest in some L mount glass from Panasonic and Sigma for autofocus. Truth be told, I'd probably find the Panasonic S1 more to my wants and needs than the original SL, apart from issues with M mount performance. The S1 has better tech and features than the SL and sells for a fair bit less. If anyone has a direct comparison of M lens performance on the S1 and SL, I'd be very interested to see it.

[tom0511]

If the benefits of the SL2 are worth it or not - everybody has to decide himself. The SL is certainly still a very good camera, and I believe the noise behaviour is even better than the SL2. The AF of SL2 is not worlds ahead. I think IBIS is probably the biggest change. If you use mainky the 24-90 you have IS anyways. If you do use primes IBIS is really nice to keep ISO lower for non moving subjects, and its also cool for shooting casual video with primes to have IBIS.

The size of the files... if I pay thousands of EURO/Dollars for cameras, lenses etc. and spend a lot of time taking images, than money for a little bigger NAS or SD card is not so much the factor. My quite oldMacbookpro still works ok with 47 MP files. I must admit I would have been fine with 36 and even 24 is plenty. But 47 dont hurt me/ dont slow me down.

Todays marketing is good, and we often run into the risk of buying things we dont really need. 5 year old smart phones still work fine, but many people spend a lot of money for updateing their smart phones every 2 years. Same for cars, TVs,...

 

Edited December 2, 2019 by tom0511

[sillbeers15]

3 hours ago, tom0511 said:

If the benefits of the SL2 are worth it or not - everybody has to decide himself. The SL is certainly still a very good camera, and I believe the noise behaviour is even better than the SL2. The AF of SL2 is not worlds ahead. I think IBIS is probably the biggest change. If you use mainky the 24-90 you have IS anyways. If you do use primes IBIS is really nice to keep ISO lower for non moving subjects, and its also cool for shooting casual video with primes to have IBIS.

The size of the files... if I pay thousands of EURO/Dollars for cameras, lenses etc. and spend a lot of time taking images, than money for a little bigger NAS or SD card is not so much the factor. My quite oldMacbookpro still works ok with 47 MP files. I must admit I would have been fine with 36 and even 24 is plenty. But 47 dont hurt me/ dont slow me down.

Todays marketing is good, and we often run into the risk of buying things we dont really need. 5 year old smart phones still work fine, but many people spend a lot of money for updateing their smart phones every 2 years. Same for cars, TVs,...

 

I was also a sceptic before I took delivery of the SL2. If you only look at specs, you'll say why pay more than the S1R. If you had not used the SL extensively and started to shoot the SL2 with native lenses, you'll not see the benefits of SL2 over the SL (cause the SL is already a fine camera which I've enjoyed using it over the past 4 years).

The AF capability of the SL2 did improved quite significantly over the SL if you are a SL native lens user in speed and accuracy. The iAF is also a useful AF function which the camera decides byitself if it want to switch into AFC mode for continuous AF when the subject of focus is in motion. The AF tracking is now reliable with a successfully focused success rate of more than 80% (provided you have optimised the camera's AF settings & drive speed setting).

The DR range and noise inlow ISO certainly is better than the SL. This means you'll have more room for creativity in post processing especially now IBIS can trully help to recover lots of details in shadow if you desire.

The 16-35 combined with SL2 provides 'depth' in IQ that cannot be produced by the 24MPx sensor. With the appropriate lights and shadows, the depths of pics comes close to those previously only possible to be produced by Medium Format cameras.

[nicci78]

If we are looking for a full frame SL-mount camera. SL2, S1R or S1 make more sense than a used SL. 

However if we are looking for an EVF M camera. Used SL is a bargain against M10 + Visoflex : better EVF ; Sensor are different but on par against each other ; better handling for heavy M lenses ; video mode ; integrated GPS ; bigger battery ; better weather sealing. 
 

Weight wise, they are not that different : SL = 847g vs M10 + handgrip + Visoflex = 760g 

Edited December 2, 2019 by nicci78

[Raid Amin]

19 hours ago, nicci78 said:

If we are looking for a full frame SL-mount camera. SL2, S1R or S1 make more sense than a used SL. 

However if we are looking for an EVF M camera. Used SL is a bargain against M10 + Visoflex : better EVF ; Sensor are different but on par against each other ; better handling for heavy M lenses ; video mode ; integrated GPS ; bigger battery ; better weather sealing. 
 

Weight wise, they are not that different : SL = 847g vs M10 + handgrip + Visoflex = 760g 

Isn't the SL a "full frame SL-mount camera"? Why is not a good choice for its cost?

[geoffreyg]

A different perspective here: used to be an M user exclusively, have been enjoying the CL, and was not sympathetic to the SL. Too heavy, not sure what it offered. Yesterday stopped by local Leica dealer (truth to tell, he's across the street!), to check out the SL2. 

Short time with it - but the body felt quite good. The EVF excellent, the AF seemed a bit slow. Had the 24-90 zoom on it, and while its probably a great lens, but can't deal with the weight. The world seems split between those who can and those who can't. 

As a portable medium format camera, it offers a lot of things quite nicely - lens compatibility, super new lenses, big files that can get even bigger, stabilization. Its a tripod camera which (maybe) some can take for a walk around. But as a general use camera, the body is fine but the size of those lenses.... oof.  

[nicci78]

1 hour ago, Raid Amin said:

Isn't the SL a "full frame SL-mount camera"? Why is not a good choice for its cost?

Maybe because S1 have better/newer sensor, better EVF, tilting screen, IBIS, warranty and is cheaper or same price with a free 25-105 f/4. 
SL has GPS and better M lenses support though. 

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, geoffreyg said:

A different perspective here: used to be an M user exclusively, have been enjoying the CL, and was not sympathetic to the SL. Too heavy, not sure what it offered. Yesterday stopped by local Leica dealer (truth to tell, he's across the street!), to check out the SL2. 

Short time with it - but the body felt quite good. The EVF excellent, the AF seemed a bit slow. Had the 24-90 zoom on it, and while its probably a great lens, but can't deal with the weight. The world seems split between those who can and those who can't. 

As a portable medium format camera, it offers a lot of things quite nicely - lens compatibility, super new lenses, big files that can get even bigger, stabilization. Its a tripod camera which (maybe) some can take for a walk around. But as a general use camera, the body is fine but the size of those lenses.... oof.  

Don’t know if you tried, but the SL Summicron primes provide a much nicer handholding experience IMO. I will likely add the 24-90 anyway as a one-lens weather sealed solution for cold and snow to eliminate any need to change lenses (without material loss in IQ) . Not an M-like or even CL experience, but lots more handholding flexibility in diverse conditions given OIS, IBIS and weather sealing of body and lens.  Different tools.

Jeff

 

[Donzo98]

2 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Maybe because S1 have better/newer sensor, better EVF, tilting screen, IBIS, warranty and is cheaper or same price with a free 25-105 f/4. 
SL has GPS and better M lenses support though. 

Not to mention way better HIGH ISO performance on the S1.

The only reason to consider the SL... is the better performance of M glass on the SL vs the S1.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chaemono]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Donzo98:

Not to mention way better HIGH ISO performance on the S1.

The only reason to consider the SL... is the better performance of M glass on the SL vs the S1.

Keep in mind ISO 6400 on the S1 is ISO 3200 on the SL, ISO 3200 on the S1 is ISO 1600 on the SL, and so on.  Not all ISO is created equal. 😁  See here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-SZrJhT/

[Donzo98]

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

Keep in mind ISO 6400 on the S1 is ISO 3200 on the SL, ISO 3200 on the S1 is ISO 1600 on the SL, and so on.  Not all ISO is created equal. 😁  See here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-SZrJhT/

Still much better at HIGH ISO... no question.