Move to SL2 or stay with Nikon D850?

[Charlie F.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own a Leica Q2. My first Leica.... and I love it. From the simple controls, to the image sharpness and colour fidelity.

However, for my occasional gig and landscape photography I use a Nikon D850 with a range of long and prime lenses. I'm toying with the idea of trading my Nikon for the mirrorless SL2. The similar controls, lens quality, sharpness and build quality are all factors in my consideration. Is this a sound move? Can I make it work? What lenses would be available to me [not just from Leica, but maybe Panasonic/Sigma, etc]?

Any advice/criticism welcome. Thanks!

NB. I currently use a 300mm Nikon lens for some of my photography, is there an option in the Leica system for such a lens?

Edited October 28, 2020 by Charlie F.

[DaveV]

I've been down a similar path.  I sold my Nikon D810 and all of the F mount DSLR glass years back and switched to Fuji.  Last year I sold off the Fuji gear and picked up a Q2 and a Nikon Z7 with a few of their native Z mount lenses.  After shooting the Q2 for a while, I was intrigued by the SL2 and the L mount, so I decided to buy the SL2 and 35mm SL Summicron.  I was literally blown away by the image quality and ordered the 24-90 SL lens as well.  Both of those lenses along with the Q2 cover 80-90% of what I shoot.  While I loved the Z and the 24-70 2.8 S lens, The image quality of the Leica lenses are on a completely different level and I have never been happier.  Along the way I also picked up the 70mm/2.8 Sigma Art Macro and the 14-24 Sigma ART for L mount, which are fantastic lenses in their own right and round out my kit for what I shoot.  

I like the L mount alliance, as there are now a bunch or really high end lenses from Leica, Panasonic and Sigma that really cover the bases for what I need.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Stuart Richardson]

The SL2 is a versatile a very high performing camera within its limits. I would say the biggest difference for you will be with respect to SLR versus mirrorless. The next will be with lens choice. If you are used to long lenses, the Nikon will likely have more options. The 90-280 Leica zoom is very high rated, but also extremely expensive. I mostly use other lenses, so I can not speak to the other options, but Nikon will likely have more flexibility there.

The other big difference will be AF. There is a lot of grousing about the lack of phase detect AF in the SL2, and especially if you are a video or sports shooter, you should be aware that the AF is not as quick and reliable as Nikon, Canon or Sony mirrorless cameras. That said, if you are mostly a stills shooter focused on slower moving subjects, it works very well. I have had no issues at all with focus. It is worth trying in person if you can.

What the SL2 gives you is what you are used to in the Q2, but even better...at least with the APO Summicrons. The EVF is great, the design and build are terrific, and the color and image quality are extremely high. Personally, I think the prime lenses do a better job of exploiting the advantages of the camera. If you can budget at least the 35mm or 50mm APO summicrons, I would consider adding one of them. They perform at an extremely high level and balance very well on the body. Used as a package, they are a joy in use. Very freeing too, in that you really do not need to think about any image quality consequences...they are amazing at any aperture or distance. Personally, even though they are a bit slower, I think the size advantage and image quality advantages they confer are worth any slight loss in speed in comparison to the 1.4 lenses.

As for third party, I think needs vary. I know people spoke very highly of the 45mm Sigma as a compact option. I tried it and just found it rather underwhelming...quite soft up close and rather poor wide open. I think the biggest hole in the L mount line up is for a very high performance compact lens...it seems that the APO Summicrons are the closest to that goal, even though they are not small or light by most people's estimation. Of course, M mount lenses are an option, but they do not have weather sealing or AF and auto aperture, so it can be a compromise. The bigger and more expensive Sigma lenses, as well as the Panasonic high end lenses all get great reviews, so they are worth a shot if you want to save some money as compared to the native Leica lenses. I stand by what I say above though...get your favorite focal length as an APO summicron and then flesh out the rest as you can.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Stuart Richardson

[caissa]

The question is, what do you like in your current equipment. Mainly the camera or mainly the selection of lenses ?

The lens choice is of course very different. It is very good for my needs, but maybe not for yours. The choice is much smaller than with Nikon, but the quality is clearly higher. If you use the Nikon Fresnel lenses, there is no equivalent in Leica lenses.

Similar with the camera. If your photos are mainly produced with the Nikon type of AFc, then stay with Nikon. The SL2 is nice to use (like the Q2), but AF is different. AFs is very quick (I use this always), but AFc is not as fool proof as on Nikon. (I never use it, so I don’t care.) Generally the SL2 is a very quick camera. Really nice to use. 

Edited October 28, 2020 by caissa

[pkwok]

I have SL2 and D850 also. I still enjoy the Nikon 300mm f/4 and 500 mm f/5.6 Fresnel lens. The image quality is still great. For Leica, the 90-280mm is heavy, even you don't consider the price. However, if your images are mostly on the wide and standard focal length range, Leica is another world.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The bad news first. The SL2 doesn't do tracking focus like you'll probably want it to. It's only fair in results and poor in user experience. Video AF is not good at all compared to ANY other mirrorless brand. You don't get a flippy screen. Battery life is a quarter of your Nikon. A spare battery cost as much a a second hand Toyota. But you know that already.The vertical grip is uncomfortable and costs as much as a new Toyota.

But that's really it. If you rely on continuous focus, stay away. If you shoot primarily single shot AF you'll love the SL. IQ is stellar. The lenses are stellar. It's responsive and has a stunning EVF, joystick and shutter. Menus are as good as they get (short of an X1D). Build quality and weather sealing are exemplarary.

For long lenses you have a couple but we do need more. Options are the very very good but slow Sigma 100-400 or the spectacular but pricey Leica 90-280. If you can justify the price and only need around 300mm the 90-280 is like a prime at the long end. Imagine a Nikon 70-200 and 300mm prime in one package. The SIgma is 6.3 on the long end but looks OK optically. I have yet to try one out though. You can go a lot longer with very slow AF (Sigma adaptor for Canon) or MF. But really, longer than 400 and you keep the Nikon.

Gordon

 

[Jared]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, Charlie F. said:

I own a Leica Q2. My first Leica.... and I love it. From the simple controls, to the image sharpness and colour fidelity.

However, for my occasional gig and landscape photography I use a Nikon D850 with a range of long and prime lenses. I'm toying with the idea of trading my Nikon for the mirrorless SL2. The similar controls, lens quality, sharpness and build quality are all factors in my consideration. Is this a sound move? Can I make it work? What lenses would be available to me [not just from Leica, but maybe Panasonic/Sigma, etc]?

Any advice/criticism welcome. Thanks!

NB. I currently use a 300mm Nikon lens for some of my photography, is there an option in the Leica system for such a lens?

Depends totally on your type of photography and your expectations from the new camera. For example, if your hope is that you will take better pictures with the Leica, you are likely to be disappointed. The D850 is a superb camera with a wide range of lenses available, many of them superb. The SL2 is also a superb camera with somewhat different strengths and weaknesses. It has a smaller set of lenses available, but many of them are likewise superb. So, if you are expecting visibly better image quality, you may be disappointed.

If you like the controls on the Q2 and are hoping to get a more flexible system camera with a similar set of controls and menus, the SL2 might be for you. Controls are a bit less traditional/more DSLR-like on the SL2 than the Q2, though; control wheels vs aperture rings and shutter speed dials, for example. The build quality is a step or two above that of the D850 and Q2. The available lenses from Leica are all—all—outstanding, both the primes and the zooms. Some of the Panasonic lenses are also superb, though I haven’t spent enough time with any of them to give appropriate details. I can say from experience that the Sigma 45mm DG DN is wonderful as a compact, street/carry around/travel lens, though you already have the Q2 which excels in this area as well. 

So, what will you lose vs. the Nikon D850? Aside from a bunch of money? Well, the widest angle lens from Leica for the SL2 is the 16-35mm. Sigma has a 14-24. The longest focal length from Leica is the 90-280 (pretty close to your 300mm). There is a Sigma 100-400mm, but I can’t speak to it’s quality. That’s not to say it is inferior, I’ve just never used it. The longest prime from Leica is 90mm and the widest angle prime is currently 35mm though wider angle lenses are in the roadmap.

Beyond a narrower range of lens choices, you also get relatively poor flash performance. Leica is really good at available light photography but not so good with strobes. Perfectly usable for the basics, but this is a strength for Nikon.

The AF in the SL2 is also not up to the level of the D850. It is excellent in terms of accuracy, and not bad in terms of speed (depending on the lens), but for fast moving subjects it’s not up to the level of the D850. So for birds in flight or some other wildlife photography I would stick with the Nikon. Same if you are a sports shooter. But the Leica would do just fine for kids, street photography, and even weddings and other events.

You’d also be giving up your optical viewfinder. I consider this a plus, but any given photographer might prefer the optical.

That’s about it in terms of issues. The build quality is excellent, the lenses are among the best in the world, the megapixel count is ample, the IBIS is very good, the AF is adequate with the exceptions noted above. If you are trying to change your interaction with the camera, the SL2 might be just the thing. 

[caissa]

Some additional remarks.

The Canon EF 4/400 DO IS II works very well on the SL2 (with MC-21 adapter). Could be a fine replacement for the 300 mm prime. The Sigma 4/500 will probably also come in L-mount (sooner or later). Or the 2.8/120-300 ?!  The Nikon Fresnel lenses can also be used on the SL2, but you loose aperture control and AF. (Always completely open, or at the aperture you used last time on a Nikon).

In wide angle the Canon EF 11-24 also works very well. (With the above adapter.) Interesting also the T/S lenses from Canon.

Regarding flash/strobes. Not very well supported. But it is now very easy (and not expensive anymore) to use instead continuous light, then the SL2 works very well, and you have much better control (preview) of results.

And yes, the color fidelity is what I always liked in Leica. And resolution is great and can even be enhanced with multishot mode (187 MP, which also gives you “true colors”).

Edited October 29, 2020 by caissa

[Manicouagan1]

If you already own a Nikon D850 and an assortment of lenses you pretty much have the end of the evolution process for DSLR's not optimized for sports and the D850 does a pretty good job of outdoor sports in Daylight.  It is a close to a do everything camera + lens system as is made today.   When coupled to the 500mm 5.6 PF lens you have a hand holdable super telephoto good with a 1.4 x extender to 700mm that has limited if any competition.  The D850 replacements are the Nikon Z7, Canon R5 and Sony A7R III or possibly IV, although these cameras can use DSLR lenses with adapters, the autofocus is hobbled.   Thus replacing a D850 requires buying new lenses by the manufacturers' design.  

At the current point in the evolution of Leica's Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras the SL2 produces extraordinary images as the contributors to this blog can attest.   Personally I am using three systems : 1) a Canon 1Dx II with the 70-200 2.8 L II or 100-400 5.6 L for sports, a Nikon D850 with 500mm lenses for birds in flight and wildlife and the SL2 for everything else.  It makes for a very full gear closet.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Archiver]

22 hours ago, Manicouagan1 said:

At the current point in the evolution of Leica's Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras the SL2 produces extraordinary images as the contributors to this blog can attest.   Personally I am using three systems : 1) a Canon 1Dx II with the 70-200 2.8 L II or 100-400 5.6 L for sports, a Nikon D850 with 500mm lenses for birds in flight and wildlife and the SL2 for everything else.  It makes for a very full gear closet. 

And a very sore back! 😬

You're right, the D850 is the peak of DSLR evolution with regards to most purposes. We're still seeing the evolution of mirrorless cameras for demanding applications like sports and other rapid lower light photography.

[Charlie F.]

Gentlemen, thank you all for these considered replies.

I've lived and used Nikon virtually all my adult life... ever since my photojournalist days, photographing football games, and the occasional war zone [Northern Ireland & Lebanese civil war].

In summary: football games - freezing the action/sharpness is mostly a requirement; war zone photography - not so much [other than avoiding getting shot at  🙄]. 

My photography is now shooting gigs and other assorted events [mostly outdoors]. Everyone from Dolly Parton, Sheryl Crow, Elvis Costello, Gary Clark Jr, etc. Rarely use flash/strobes, only occasionally do I use AF, since for musicians, some movement makes for nice captures. The rest of my time is architectural, street and landscape photography. With my Q2 I shoot solely manual. And I've discovered I like focus peaking!

 

[lx1713]

As you were once a photojournalist, I believe you will find an affinity for the SL2. This forum is a massive treasure trove of many good informational threads to dig into. There are aspects of the SL that you just have to trust it to deliver. The lens roadmap is simple but every lens a gem. Don't ignore the TL lenses.

Flash would be a big weakness if you rely on automation such as TTL.

I find it to be a very carefully thought out camera. It's not for everyone but the workflow suits me now. I came from a Canon 1D and Nikon film cameras, it took me a couple of years to like the SL. It was hard work. My hit rate fell a massive 20-30% but the Leica images have some hold over me. I found it easier to go back to a Nikon than a Canon camera so everyone's muscle memory may be selective here.

The SL2 is much better in every way except at 47mp, it might strain your patience.

As a work companion, it's a really nice tool to work with. Consistent and reliable. Occasionally I will need to pop out the battery to reset the system (which never happens with my 1D) but otherwise it's been great. I do find the responsiveness to come with a price. Batteries can drain really fast under some settings. I just buy more batteries. 10 is my current count.

Edited November 6, 2020 by lx1713

[fsprow]

I have travelled this path and left the SL2 behind.  Reasons:

- Although I perceived image quality to be better on the Leica, large prints indicated otherwise and that they were indistinguishable - and both not up to my Hasselblad H6D-100C.

- I still prefer an optical SLR system

- Flash control is vastly superior on the Nikon

- AF is no comparison, as others have said - speed and accuracy

I still love Leicas - and use my M4 and M10 very frequently.

Edited November 6, 2020 by fsprow

[NicholasT]

On 10/28/2020 at 12:57 PM, Charlie F. said:

I own a Leica Q2. My first Leica.... and I love it. From the simple controls, to the image sharpness and colour fidelity.

However, for my occasional gig and landscape photography I use a Nikon D850 with a range of long and prime lenses. I'm toying with the idea of trading my Nikon for the mirrorless SL2. The similar controls, lens quality, sharpness and build quality are all factors in my consideration. Is this a sound move? Can I make it work? What lenses would be available to me [not just from Leica, but maybe Panasonic/Sigma, etc]?

Any advice/criticism welcome. Thanks!

NB. I currently use a 300mm Nikon lens for some of my photography, is there an option in the Leica system for such a lens?

I was Nikon shooter for 15+ years and over that period owned almost every camera Nikon released, most recently D4s and D800 series. For years I was shooting primarily travel and landscape and more recently wildlife. I also was fortunate to own almost every lens in Nikon's line from the wonderful 14-24 all the way up to 400mm F2.8 and 600mm F4 primes. Over the last couple of years I've sold all of my Nikon gear and made the full transition to Leica. Currently own the SL2 and Q2.

Before I get to all the pluses let me state up front that for reasons having to do mostly with location I'm no longer shooting wildlife and am back to mostly travel and landscape photography. If I was still shooting wildlife or action sports for that matter I wouldn't have made the change. The SL2 for all its virtues is not ideal for wildlife shooting or action photography. There are several very accomplished wildlife photographers (many on this forum) who use SL or SL2 with great success shooting wildlife but I would guess that few would argue that Canikon is still the way to go. AF tracking is simply not up to Nikon and Cannon standards and lens choices beyond 300mm are severely limited and further handicap the shooting experience.

Turning to SL2 and reasons for the switch. When I compare the shooting experience with Nikon versus SL2 I found it to be a night and day difference. The handling, visualizing the shot and interfacing with the camera to get the desired result on the SL2 is seamless and enhances and inspires one to shoot and keep shooting. The interface ( similar to Q2) is powerful yet simple and most importantly everything is customizable so whatever simplified functions are at one's fingertips its the ones that the photographer wants and not those the camera company decided for us. The simplicity is often emphasized in reviews but the customization doesn't receive the level of attention it deserves.

One can't talk about the switch from Nikon to Leica without touching on the viewfinder experience. My short summary would be that for years I couldn't understand why anyone would want to use an EVF over an optical viewfinder. The SL and SL2 completely changed my thinking. The quality of the EVF is so high (even better than Q2 and that's saying something) that not only did I not miss the OVF but am getting to enjoy all the extra benefits of using an EVF.

Turning to your question about lenses. Needless to say Leica L mount lens options particularly below 100mm are outstanding and more than sufficient to address almost any shooting requirements whether with some of the best zooms ever made or SL 35,50,75,90 primes which are also in a class of their own. Personally I've tested or owned all the Leica SL zoom lens and have opted for the Sigma equivalents instead. The Sigma 14-24 and 24-70 may not be quite at the level of the Leica 16-35 and 24-90 but they are awfully close in IQ have excellent build and can be had for a fraction of the cost. Also my reasoning in switching to Sigma for the zooms was so I could invest in the SL primes instead. They are simply phenomenal. I currently own the SL 50 F/2 and SL 90 F/2 and would recommend this combination or the 35/75 combo to any SL2 owner almost as "must haves", assuming of course that one can afford the investment. 

In terms of a replacement or alternative to your 300mm Nikon, as others have stated Leica's 90-280 is an incredible lens. That said, personally I would recommend the newly released Sigma 100-400 (L mount) instead. I own both the Leica 90-280 and Sigma 100-400. While the Sigma is clearly a slower lens it performs admirably. Is it as good as the 90-280? Of course not... but under normal daytime conditions I would challenge most photographers to tell the difference. Also the 5x cost differential isn't the only issue to consider. The Sigma is about 35% lighter with an extra 120mm of reach and has 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters available which while further stopped down shows very little degradation in IQ (I've tested the 1.4X but not the 2.0x). As I offer this evaluation of the Sigma 100-400 L Mount lens, please keep in mind that for years I've owned what I personally consider the finest long lens in Nikon's lineup the 400mm F2.8. Aside from its F2.8 aperture and stellar image quality, it makes Leica's 90-280 appear positively affordable.

In closing, I would also leave you with the following thoughts. There are many benefits of combining your current Q2 with the SL2. Similar handling and shooting experience is just the tip of the iceberg. Beyond the quality of the sensor near medium format IQ, you'll also be able to significantly rationalize lens choices.

For example the Q2 is such a capable camera and lens combination at 28mm and 35mm (30MP crop at 35mm) that it allows one to potentially focus on complimenting Q2 focal range with SL primes on the SL2. This is partly what led me to select the SL 50 and SL 90. I can either go out with Q2 if I know that I'm not going to miss shooting much above 35 or 50mm or I can take two cameras Q2 and SL2 with SL90 for example and without needing to switch lens or rely on a zoom I can pretty much cover anything from 28mm to 90mm. 

Edited November 9, 2020 by NicholasT