LEICA SL2 or LEICA SL2-S,... Which one to go?

[Lins-Barroso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HELP PLEASE!

Edited December 29, 2020 by Lins-Barroso

[tom0511]

do you want/need the advanced video options of the SL2-S?

do you shoot a lot at high and very high ISO?

is 24mp good for you?

SL2s

Do you want more MP, be able to crop or to print big big?

Do you like to use CL lenses occasionally and still have 20MP?

Do you shoot mainly during daylight and not need higher than 6400 ISO - SL2

For me the SL2 wins, for others it might be different.

 

[Chaemono]

I wouldn’t have switched but I liked the colors of the SL2S a bit better. They are a bit more refined and a bit easier to edit. They appeal more to me as a hobbyist. Pros can get the maximum DR and tonality out of the SL2, I’m sure. It just requires more processing. In that sense, SL2S is a bit more of a consumer oriented stills camera. 

[Joakim]

How can we know what is important to you when buying a new camera?

[Jeff S]

Do you like black lettering or white lettering?

Jeff

[Mexy]

14 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Do you like black lettering or white lettering?

Jeff

That's the point, hahaha!

[PATB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does it make sense to go with SL2-S if you do not shoot video?

[Dr. G]

1 hour ago, PATB said:

Does it make sense to go with SL2-S if you do not shoot video?

Depends on what you’re subject material is.  The SL2-S can do everything the SL2 can.  The SL2-S has less megapixels, but depending on your technique and how you shoot, lower megapixel cameras can sometimes yield images that are perceived to be sharper.  Yes, they both have IBIS, but with a moving subject higher Mp cameras can suffer from slight loss of sharpness from camera shake (I haven’t tested this yet on the SL2-S and SL2 - I have both).  

As previously mentioned, the files from the SL2-S will be easier to store and quicker to process (depending on how powerful your machine is).  If you transfer wirelessly at any point it will be noticeably faster.  

Color science between the SL2 and SL2-S seems to be slightly different based on the images I’ve seen posted and from my experience so far.

if you shoot landscape, highly detailed images or do monochrome conversions with both high detail and contrast, the SL2 may be the better choice.  

I don’t shoot video and would be happy with the SL2-S if I had to own only one body.  If you don’t need higher megapixels, don’t heavily crop, and don’t print very large it can easily serve as a fantastic stills camera.  I’m grabbing the SL2-S more than the SL2 since getting it.  

[SrMi]

I find that 24MP is plenty of resolution for landscape photography (see Ansel Adams' or Michael Kenna's print sizes).

The max DR (at lowest ISO) is about the same between SL2 and SL2-S, but high ISO DR is better with SL2-S.

Leica has announced autofocus improvements for SL2-S. It is not clear if those will be implemented for SL2 as well.

SL2-S is also less expensive. 

If I did not already have an SL2, I might be getting an SL2-S instead.

On the other hand, while I do not need the high resolution, it is always a great joy to pixel peep well-executed high-resolution files :).

[lx1713]

As a personal camera without the need to enlarge religiously, the SL2-S. I want to enjoy my photography but I haven't learnt to slow my pace of shooting. Too many 85mb files can be a killjoy.

As I depend on the cameras for a living, I'm grudging loving my SL2 and delaying the purchase of the SL2-S which I know will displace the SL2 as my main camera.

I may finally sell off the SL which dragged me from my retirement plans 😅

But they are all good cameras.

[Dr. G]

5 hours ago, lx1713 said:

As a personal camera without the need to enlarge religiously, the SL2-S. I want to enjoy my photography but I haven't learnt to slow my pace of shooting. Too many 85mb files can be a killjoy.

As I depend on the cameras for a living, I'm grudging loving my SL2 and delaying the purchase of the SL2-S which I know will displace the SL2 as my main camera.

I may finally sell off the SL which dragged me from my retirement plans 😅

But they are all good cameras.

You don't have to answer this, but do you find the that the files from the original SL have more of a special and unique character than those from the SL2?  I know some photographers (a few who make a living from photography) who sold their original SL, but after initially using the SL2, then found and repurchased an original SL again.   If you do see and prefer the difference I think you may want to to at least rent the SL2-S (or borrow one from your local Leica store for a few hours) and play with your own files a bit to compare the two cameras side by side (the SL2 and SL2-S).  The SL2 has some major technological advantages over the original SL.  Those advances are now present in the SL2-S.  

I'm merely speculating, but when I see others owning both the original SL and SL2 together (which I, too, did for a bit and struggled with selling the SL), I tend to think there's a reason why they kept the original even though on paper the SL2 is a "better" camera.  That reason usually has nothing to do with the fact that the files from the original SL are smaller in size and less taxing on the hardware they're using.  Logically speaking, with IBIS, improved AF, more resolution, etc it would seem to be an easy decision to merely replace their SL with the SL2 -  yet many still have their original along with the SL2 (not just for a second or backup body, either).

As I've mentioned, I like the look of the very detailed, high contrast black and white conversions the SL2 can create,  I also like the ability to crop when I either don't have a long enough lens to capture something I see or (because I might have missed it when taking a photo) can see and heavily crop to a better composition when editing - the ability to get a horizontal crop from an image originally taken vertically, or vice versa is a nice luxury to have, but not one that most seasoned photographers would need as most would see the better composition initially.  

I have not, however, ever said I like the overall look of the files of the SL2 over those from the original SL.  This is one of the reasons I really like the SL2-S and am using it more than the SL2 at this point.  Even to this day, as I look back at all of my photos, many of my favorites were taken with the original SL.

Now, if a 47Mp SL2-M existed that would most likely replace my SL2... 

[lx1713]

54 minutes ago, Dr. G said:

You don't have to answer this, but do you find the that the files from the original SL have more of a special and unique character than those from the SL2?  I know some photographers (a few who make a living from photography) who sold their original SL, but after initially using the SL2, then found and repurchased an original SL again.   If you do see and prefer the difference I think you may want to to at least rent the SL2-S (or borrow one from your local Leica store for a few hours) and play with your own files a bit to compare the two cameras side by side (the SL2 and SL2-S).  The SL2 has some major technological advantages over the original SL.  Those advances are now present in the SL2-S.  

I'm merely speculating, but when I see others owning both the original SL and SL2 together (which I, too, did for a bit and struggled with selling the SL), I tend to think there's a reason why they kept the original even though on paper the SL2 is a "better" camera.  That reason usually has nothing to do with the fact that the files from the original SL are smaller in size and less taxing on the hardware they're using.  Logically speaking, with IBIS, improved AF, more resolution, etc it would seem to be an easy decision to merely replace their SL with the SL2 -  yet many still have their original along with the SL2 (not just for a second or backup body, either).

As I've mentioned, I like the look of the very detailed, high contrast black and white conversions the SL2 can create,  I also like the ability to crop when I either don't have a long enough lens to capture something I see or (because I might have missed it when taking a photo) can see and heavily crop to a better composition when editing - the ability to get a horizontal crop from an image originally taken vertically, or vice versa is a nice luxury to have, but not one that most seasoned photographers would need as most would see the better composition initially.  

I have not, however, ever said I like the overall look of the files of the SL2 over those from the original SL.  This is one of the reasons I really like the SL2-S and am using it more than the SL2 at this point.  Even to this day, as I look back at all of my photos, many of my favorites were taken with the original SL.

Now, if a 47Mp SL2-M existed that would most likely replace my SL2... 

It's a bit tough to answer. When I first got my SL, I was tired and had just decided to retire. So with the SL, I got the 24-90 which is a wonderful lens for fast action work and certainly good enough for commercial quality assignments that's tight on time. One camera and one lens to do everything because I was tired and maybe a little bored. So I decided to live riskily and let the SL be my only camera.

When the SL2 arrived, I happened to need 47mp for a project but it was so good I was using it for everything. And then I got the primes 35, 50 & 90 which actually sat around without seeing much use as the 24-90 was just so useful. A continuous stream of corporate portraits put the SL back into play and the main lenses for it are the 50 and 90mm. I have never did a serious comparison between SL2 and SL in terms of quality because the lenses I used were not the same on each camera but I would consider the SL ISO 50 files to be sublime.

Not being a nit picker really, I just want to enjoy my work and I don't actually see much difference in either camera. I use Iridient Developer to do the raw files conversion so that might well be a factor in the lack of difference to my eyes. Anyway, any side by side comparisons will definitely show up any fine changes in colours and details but I just live with the characteristics of my chosen camera.

If I'm engaged in a scientific project where variations in tones and colours are critical, I would be more rigorous in doing a setup and pairing up the equipment sets.

 

[caissa]

The SL2 is for me better than the SL, not because of differences in IQ, but mainly because of IBIS and because it is now easy to add long term energy via USB. (And maybe LENR). Still I keep the SL. It is still useful and it was the first camera to revive the ill fated R system to some degree. (Sentimentality maybe).

I will probably not need the SL2-S. And wait for the next generation (with really perfect AF for both stills and video). 😚😎🤧🤔😁

Edited January 2, 2021 by caissa