Sl2 or Sl2-S - Advice Appreciated

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One reason why full frame and 'medium format' have converged is simply because digital medium format is not really medium format. The sensor size of a Hasselblad X1D is 44x33mm, compared to full frame 36x24mm: the smallest film medium format used to be 60x45mm, with a 'big' medium format at 90x60mm.

[NicholasT]

34 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

One reason why full frame and 'medium format' have converged is simply because digital medium format is not really medium format. The sensor size of a Hasselblad X1D is 44x33mm, compared to full frame 36x24mm: the smallest film medium format used to be 60x45mm, with a 'big' medium format at 90x60mm.

Your point is well taken.

Just suggesting is that the gap is closing and lines are blurring between the various sensor sizes and formats.

Few short years ago crop sensors were summarily dismissed by most serious photographers. Today they are routinely considered part of the standard kit of serious amateurs and professionals particularly for travel etc. 

Would we have imagined just a short while ago that a $6000 camera could produce a high quality 187MP file ? (granted under controlled conditions)

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

A few short years ago I couldn't even have imagined a $6000 camera. But then I joined the Leica club and think nothing of it.😶

[NicholasT]

4 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

A few short years ago I couldn't even have imagined a $6000 camera. But then I joined the Leica club and think nothing of it.😶

+1

I came from different brand. I was a Nikon shooter with sizable investment in that brand ( 3 top cameras, holy trinity zooms, multiple primes, 400mm F 2.8, 500mm F4 etc).

The switch wasn't easy (or cheap) but delighted to have joined Leica club.

 

[cheekz4dayz]

To the OP One thing that may not have been  mentioned in this thread yet verbatim is that the sl2-s could fit in very well in your current gear selection. You already have a lot of high megapixel sensors so I think maybe getting the sl2-s could be a really good option as now you'll have a distinct enough tool in your kit to approach corner case scenarios where you don't want high megapixels. 

If I were in your shoes I think I would go with the sl2-s and then if it ends up not being what I want trade up for the sl2. I also have an engineering background but since is a hobby sometimes it's good to just see how the gear makes us feel and then make a decision afterwards 😉

[eab]

1 hour ago, NicholasT said:

You bring up some excellent points. I’ve been doing a complete rethink in terms of re balancing my priorities when it comes to camera equipment.

We find ourselves at a particularly interesting time in digital photography.  The technological “gaps” that defined the highest quality from the very good in different areas is rapidly closing. 

By way of example the qualitative gap between full frame and medium format is closing so fast where the choice appears to be between 1) wanting “marginally” better file quality above all else in which case medium format still gets the nod or 2) Near medium format file quality with a superior user experience, portability and features such as ISIS in cameras like the SL2. It won’t be long before even these distinctions all but disappear as the physical size of the sensor becomes less and less important in determination of the ultimate quality of the output.

The same could be said for the narrowing differences between crop sensors and full frame.

Another gap that’s been steadily closing is the margin of quality difference between top lens providers like Leica and third party offerings by companies like Sigma. A few years back personally I wouldn’t have remotely suggested that a Sigma lens as a serious/viable option to owning Leica glass. In the last few years Sigma in particular has stepped up their game in a serious way.

Whether an Art series lens is the functional equivalent of Leica glass doesn't feel like the relevant question. Leica continues to enjoy identifiable advantages in either color rendition, sharpness, overall rendering, micro contrast, bokeh or some combination of these factors. That said, it’s hard to argue with the IQ per dollar invested in Sigma glass i.e. there is clear / tangible value particularly with Sigma's most recent offerings. Whether one shoots with Sigma’s new 24-70 F 2.8, the Sigma 100-400 or any of the wonderful new I-series lens, it becomes increasingly clear that the image quality, handling, weight/size considerations at affordable price points is hard to ignore i.e. Sigma L-mount lineup is in fact as good as it sounds.

With that backdrop I’ve concluded that in current photography landscape with ever shrinking gaps in quality / performance, a “blended” camera and lens strategy is the one that makes the most sense, that is unless of course one has an unlimited budget.

What does a mixed strategy really entail?

I believe it all starts with an objective analysis of our real needs as photographers, both in terms of resolution, focal range preference, zoom flexibility versus prime quality/simplicity and many other factors. This is easier said that done since most of us (present company included) suffer from some level of GAS, with visible symptoms ranging from mild to severe.

Once we’ve determined our basic needs we can then narrow our focus by comparing the strengths and weaknesses of more affordable offerings (like Sigma) with the strengths and weaknesses of the best in class glass (like Leica).

By way of example the new Sigma 24-70 F 2.8 is one the best L mount options in terms of price for performance. It's almost universally considered to be equivalent in terms of performance to the Panasonic and Sony offerings at twice the price. The Sigma 24-70 F 2.8 L mount has many strengths, but one of its weaknesses is that it’s a little “soft” wide open at close focusing distances. If I thought this particular weakness was a deal breaker in my photography, I simply wouldn’t have purchased it. I’m mostly shooting landscape (and travel when conditions allow). Close focus performance while desirable in all lens, is far more important to me in the 16-35mm range as I’m very often looking for a layered composition with well defined subject in the foreground. I therefore need best possible overall IQ performance in almost every respect in 16mm to 35mm range. This is what ultimately led me to select Leica’s SL 16-35 on one hand and Sigma 24-70 F 2.8 on the other. Would I like to own Leica Sl 24-90 to go with my SL 16-35? Of course.

Many recent Sigma L mount lens have the added benefit of being considerably smaller/lighter increasing the chances that I will actually have the lens with me when opportunity presents itself. I owned the 90-280 which may be the best zoom lens I’ve ever had the pleasure of using. In practice I found that it spent most of its time gathering dust on a shelf. Its a wonderful lens and it even looks good on a shelf, but one can certainly can find better (and cheaper) shelf ornaments. The Sigma 100-400 on the other hand while not in the same league in terms of performance, is way way better than its price would suggest and most importantly I find that I take it with me me on almost every outing, except on those occasions where I’m limiting myself to 1or 2 lens.

Possibly most important advantage of a blended OEM /Third Party lens acquisition strategy, is that it allows one to invest in few select lens (primes?) i.e. the real “keepers” in the long run. For many Leica shooters that may be M glass. In my case it's the SL primes. I own the SL 50 F2 as well as the SL 90 F2. They happen to combine really well with Leica’s SL 16-35 (again no quality penalty by saving money with Sigma 24-70) as I can always fall back on the primes when circumstances dictate.

Would I have invested in the SL 50 and SL 90 if I simultaneously owned the SL 24-90 and the SL 90-280? The answer is no. Relying on Sigma for 24-70 and 100-400 freed up sufficient funds to purchase these incredible primes. The lens purchases are very personal decisions. The thought process and how it gets applied to each photographers priorities is what feels more universal.

As a final aside, when it comes to use of primes and the challenging choice between SL2 versus SL2-s. In current setup where I own Sigma zoom in 24-70mm range as well as Leica SL 50 F2 and SL 90 F2, anytime I chose to rely on the SL primes instead of Sigma zoom, I know that with SL2 I can effectively get the equivalent result across the entire equivalent zoom range using the 2 primes and cropping as required. The result will effectively be the same (or better) than if I was using SL2-s with prime lens and no cropping. Clearly the exception would be in very low light conditions, where SL2-s will outperform SL2 whatever lens one is using.

I tackled your last question first. In order to avoid turning this into the online equivalent of “war and peace”, I think may already be there :), will cover SL2, Sl2s and TL lens questions/comments in a separate post later in the day.

Hi Nicholas,

Lots of thoughts in your post, many of which apply to any of the current camera and lens ecosystems on the market today.  Currently for my CL and M I have only purchased and used Leica glass.  In some ways I have been conditioned by what I read, in that the combination of Leica sensor treatment ( micro lenses, no filter, algorithms ) and lens construction results in the “look”. In practice I can see this in some of my photos but many look like the photos from similarly speced cameras. I like the idea of the SL system in this regard.  I can purchase some Leica lens that will allow me to hopefully attain the “look” but also purchase other lenses for those occasions when other priorities prevail.  

For the SL2 or SL2S I am sure I would have a mixture of both Leica and non Leica glass depending on my objectives. I would definitely want to try the Sigma 100-400  and maybe one of there smaller primes like the 45mm.  I will probably want to try the Leica 24-90 as a general purpose walk around lens.  I suspect that if I am comfortable with size and handling it would become my most used lens.  I tend to be a little lazy and don’t necessarily enjoy carrying a lot of lenses around and swapping back and forth.  I suspect with the SL2 i would use the zoom most of the time and carry one of my M lenses (35 Summulux) for use when the available light requires it.  

At this point I feel like I need to just make a decision regarding my priorities of low light and image quality vs the ability to crop and higher MP for landscape and printing.

  

[eab]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 minutes ago, cheekz4dayz said:

To the OP One thing that may not have been  mentioned in this thread yet verbatim is that the sl2-s could fit in very well in your current gear selection. You already have a lot of high megapixel sensors so I think maybe getting the sl2-s could be a really good option as now you'll have a distinct enough tool in your kit to approach corner case scenarios where you don't want high megapixels. 

If I were in your shoes I think I would go with the sl2-s and then if it ends up not being what I want trade up for the sl2. I also have an engineering background but since is a hobby sometimes it's good to just see how the gear makes us feel and then make a decision afterwards 😉

Yes, I have thought about this and I think ultimately you are right.  In all honesty, if I find that I really enjoy shooting with the camera and don’t find it to large and heavy I would end up with both.  My wife and I will often travel in our camper for 2 or three months at a time and it is good to have a back-up body as we all have accidents occasionally.  Luckily i have never dropped a body but i have managed to drop a few lenses over the years....

[SrMi]

On 1/17/2021 at 6:26 AM, Photoworks said:

The ISO noise level of the a7R4 is very similar to the SL2, high megapixel camera have become better over the years, but a 24mp will be better at that.

I like the megapixel, give you freedom to crop and furure proof images for year to come. If you think editing is slow, we'll it is for leica like sony, my suggestion is to use photo mechanics and c1p and drop that slow lightroom

According to this measurements, SL2 has more noise in shadows than a7rIV (BTW, I am happy with noise in SL2). Resolution does not matter for noise if compared at the same output size.

I have not noticed that the latest LrC is slower in processing high resolution files than C1 (v20).

[NicholasT]

2 hours ago, eab said:

Hi Nicholas,

Lots of thoughts in your post, many of which apply to any of the current camera and lens ecosystems on the market today.  Currently for my CL and M I have only purchased and used Leica glass.  In some ways I have been conditioned by what I read, in that the combination of Leica sensor treatment ( micro lenses, no filter, algorithms ) and lens construction results in the “look”. In practice I can see this in some of my photos but many look like the photos from similarly speced cameras. I like the idea of the SL system in this regard.  I can purchase some Leica lens that will allow me to hopefully attain the “look” but also purchase other lenses for those occasions when other priorities prevail.  

For the SL2 or SL2S I am sure I would have a mixture of both Leica and non Leica glass depending on my objectives. I would definitely want to try the Sigma 100-400  and maybe one of there smaller primes like the 45mm.  I will probably want to try the Leica 24-90 as a general purpose walk around lens.  I suspect that if I am comfortable with size and handling it would become my most used lens.  I tend to be a little lazy and don’t necessarily enjoy carrying a lot of lenses around and swapping back and forth.  I suspect with the SL2 i would use the zoom most of the time and carry one of my M lenses (35 Summulux) for use when the available light requires it.  

At this point I feel like I need to just make a decision regarding my priorities of low light and image quality vs the ability to crop and higher MP for landscape and printing.

  

Yes in prior post I definitely ventured somewhat off topic.

As long as you are ok with the size/weight of the SL 24-90 I think you will be very pleased with it as a general purpose lens. I sold it in favor of the primes, but also because at least in my case 2-3 hours was my max with that lens in terms of comfortable carry.

With regard to your earlier question about my intentions with SL2 and SL2-s combo. I've just received my SL2-s. It was not an easy decision in that I sold my Q2 (a camera I loved) in order to purchase SL2-s. I intend to keep both SL2's.

One of the key factors that led me to adding the SL2-s to SL-2 is so I can use use them independently in their respective areas of strength, or simultaneously in the field when traveling or when shooting landscapes. I often find myself shooting in windy or unseasonable conditions. The last thing one wants to be doing under those conditions is changing lens if one can possibly avoid it. I learned a long time ago when shooting wildlife in Africa, Yellowstone and elsewhere that there is no substitute for having two cameras with different lens mounted and at the ready.

During golden hour for example lighting conditions change very fast so fumbling with lens changes is not recommended. Also during long exposures which can involve many minutes including noise reduction, I like to have a second camera so I can be taking different compositions during that narrow window with optimal lighting.

Also as you mention having a backup particularly when one is traveling is a high priority. While it may be rare, if anything goes wrong and camera needs to go back to Leica its weeks if not months before one is back in action with that camera.

Re TL lens use I'm not using them as much as I anticipated, but that's mostly because I'm not traveling. Since you travel a lot with your wife (love the fact that you're able to do so over extended periods of time) I'd be surprised if you don't find yourself using them very frequently. The lens pair very nicely with SL's in general and the IQ on almost all of the TL lens is excellent.

Last but not least I strongly recommend you check out the Sigma I series lens. The Sigma 45mm F2.8 is my absolute favorite city/travel walk around lens. When I'm not shooting landscapes, that lens is permanently attached to my camera. I will be receiving the new 35mm F2 this week and can't wait to put it to good use. I may ultimately sell the 45mm in favor of the faster 35mm ( 35mm & 45mm probably too close to keep both). 

Edited January 18, 2021 by NicholasT

[eab]

5 hours ago, NicholasT said:

Yes in prior post I definitely ventured somewhat off topic.

As long as you are ok with the size/weight of the SL 24-90 I think you will be very pleased with it as a general purpose lens. I sold it in favor of the primes, but also because at least in my case 2-3 hours was my max with that lens in terms of comfortable carry.

With regard to your earlier question about my intentions with SL2 and SL2-s combo. I've just received my SL2-s. It was not an easy decision in that I sold my Q2 (a camera I loved) in order to purchase SL2-s. I intend to keep both SL2's.

One of the key factors that led me to adding the SL2-s to SL-2 is so I can use use them independently in their respective areas of strength, or simultaneously in the field when traveling or when shooting landscapes. I often find myself shooting in windy or unseasonable conditions. The last thing one wants to be doing under those conditions is changing lens if one can possibly avoid it. I learned a long time ago when shooting wildlife in Africa, Yellowstone and elsewhere that there is no substitute for having two cameras with different lens mounted and at the ready.

During golden hour for example lighting conditions change very fast so fumbling with lens changes is not recommended. Also during long exposures which can involve many minutes including noise reduction, I like to have a second camera so I can be taking different compositions during that narrow window with optimal lighting.

Also as you mention having a backup particularly when one is traveling is a high priority. While it may be rare, if anything goes wrong and camera needs to go back to Leica its weeks if not months before one is back in action with that camera.

Re TL lens use I'm not using them as much as I anticipated, but that's mostly because I'm not traveling. Since you travel a lot with your wife (love the fact that you're able to do so over extended periods of time) I'd be surprised if you don't find yourself using them very frequently. The lens pair very nicely with SL's in general and the IQ on almost all of the TL lens is excellent.

Last but not least I strongly recommend you check out the Sigma I series lens. The Sigma 45mm F2.8 is my absolute favorite city/travel walk around lens. When I'm not shooting landscapes, that lens is permanently attached to my camera. I will be receiving the new 35mm F2 this week and can't wait to put it to good use. I may ultimately sell the 45mm in favor of the faster 35mm ( 35mm & 45mm probably too close to keep both). 

Thank you for this post it has been very helpful in understanding how you came to make the decision to purchase the SL2-S.  I think in some ways it has helped me in clarifying my criteria for making my choice.  You like many others on this site are accomplished photographers ( I did take a look at your website, there are some fabulous images there!! )and recognize that different tools are necessary for different jobs.  This is especially true as you increase your skills and require more specialized tools ( as you said above ).  I am not really coming from that place, I am still pretty early to the game, but working to get there.  

I think at this time I am interested in trying the SL2 or the SL2s while I am not really going anywhere to see if I will like shooting it more than the A7R4 and prefer the images I create with it.  When we are traveling I just use what I have and stick with it till we get home.  

I do have some concerns about the size and weight of the 24-90.  You are probably right that I would not choose to use it for a six hour tour of a city but it might be the perfect lens to leave mounted as we are driving around and something of interest presents itself as it always does.  Our camper is large enough that I can carry pretty much anything I want ( within reason ), if you are curious you can checkout our instagram @Moabout.

I am not sure about the TL lenses.  I really need to investigate the third party full frame solutions.  I agree though, at first review they are smaller and lighter and the IQ is very good.  I have always been impressed by the 35 1.4 and the 11-23.  If I end up with the SL2 I will definitely check them out. I also have read good things about the Sigmas and will be taking a good look at them. 

As you get some use out of your SL2s I will be very interested in your thoughts.

 

 

 

[eab]

I just wanted to take a minute and thank everyone who has contributed to this thread it has been very helpful to me, THANK YOU ALL!  By the way this is one of the reasons that I really love the Leicas, its the people on this forum, their collective wisdom, willingness to question there assumptions and  share their experiences.

I am not sure I have come to a conclusion yet but I thought I would summarize where I am and what I have learned from you all.

I have re-read ( if that is a real word ) your comments regarding the noise of the SL2 in comparison to the A7R4 and have looked more closely at the SL2-S.  I have also looked at a lot of the images I have taken with my Sony and for a vast majority of the images, noise is not really the issue.  Sure there are a few which are taken towards the end of the day where the noise is an issue but this is by far the minority and I probably could have done a better job in managing the ISO, Aperature and Shutter speed to improve the result. Your comments have forced me to realize that it is me that is the problem not the camera. I am not sure why I focused on this as much as I did, maybe it was all the excitement over the SL2-S.  

When I think about my path, Fuji XT-2 -> Leica Q ->  Leica CL ->  Sony A7R4 -> Q2 -> M10P -> M10-R  I think I have realized that I just like the look of the photos that I have created with the Leica gear. My wife and I have not traveled for over a year and in that time I have spent a lot more time taking pictures with content that I am less excited about.  But, I have found that I love the way my M10 can turn a seemingly everyday object into something that is more, the colors, the depth of the image, etc.   Maybe this is all hogwash but that is what I think.

I really enjoy shooting the M10 and as I said like what I see coming out of it but it is not flexible enough for me as the only camera I would use when we travel.  I really like to have flexibility and speed that a mirrorless camera brings to the table when we are traveling, one minute we may be banging along a dirt road and see something that we want to take a snap of, other times we are taking in the sights, sounds and smells of a new city.  

I want try the SL2 to see if it can bring the same type of image quality/look as my M10 brings but in a mirrorless/ILC/EVF equipped body.  I may have eluded to this in my original post, but it is clearer to me now. it's not about the noise or the megapixels its about creating images when we are traveling that have that look. I don't get the look or the same feeling when I use my Sony, Thats it.... 

NicholasTs last post help clarify for me that each of the cameras has specific tasks which they do better. At first I thought well obviously, the SL2 is the more general solution, it came first, has higher resolution with the ability to crop, and good dynamic range.   The SL2s is the more specialized solution as it excels at Low Light and Video.  But , I have read the comments of other SL2S owners, like LocalHero1953,  suggest that in fact the SL2S is actually the better all around camera (for him) , faster, better autofocus, cleaner more natural looking images, etc. I guess I could easily make the argument that the SL2 with it higher resolution sensor is really the specialized camera it just happen to come first.  This may have be driven by the perceived need to offer a higher resolution sensor like the rest of the manufacturers and provide a really clear reason to upgrade from the SL.  

First I am sure this is all painfully obvious to a lot of you, and I am sorry to have dragged you through my thinking but I felt obligated to explain where I was as a result of your combined input and effort for which I am grateful.    

So I am going to noodle on this a little more in order to determine which of the two cameras is the best place to start to replace my A7R4 for general travel photography, for ME.

Additional thoughts and comments are welcomed and appreciated.

[ravinj]

>So I am going to noodle on this a little more in order to determine which of the two cameras is the best place to start to replace my A7R4 for general travel photography, for ME.

As you noted, only you can decide this.

My 2 cents from MY perspective:

I have used all of the cameras you mention including SL2-S and SL2, except M10-R (I do have the the M10-P) + Fuji GFX 50R. I wouldn't rule out A7RIV for general photography or even as a main camera. In fact, long ago Sony A7RII was my main camera and with Zeiss Batis and Sony GM lenses, the results were and still are top-notch. The reason I reentered the Leica world was M lenses and thankfully I never sold the key M jewels.

After trying the SL2-S for a couple of weeks (thanks to a friendly Leica dealer), I decided to keep my SL2. I do not shoot above ISO 800 since I can keep the shutter speeds very low with IBIS and still get tripod equivalent sharpness. I did not find any advantage to the SL2-S over the SL2 for my use cases and I would take higher resolution any given day. This debate is same as CD ("clinical") vs vinyl ("natural") when CDs first came out. Higher resolution and resulting detail in the photos is taken as something not natural - not an unsurprising reaction since this is surpassing what human eye would see naturally without pixel peeping.

As for M10-R or M10 or SL2 or SL-2 in general producing something magical that Sony cannot, I would attribute it to post processing and how one uses the equipment. People also believe that "oxygen free" copper wire somehow gives better audio quality that vanilla copper wire.

Lastly, don't underestimate "carriability" - SL (any flavor) with SL primes is a beast compared to M series. In many cases, the "best" equipment remains in the car or at home and the things that one actually carries are the those that are lightweight, small and capable of excellent results with no compromise in IQ. For ME, only M and Leica Q2 meet this criteria of  "carriability" where I tend to hike 10+ miles over medium to difficult terrain and every gram matters. If given a choice of only one camera that I can take on a hike or a long day-trip, it will be the Q2. But then I don't shoot wildlife or birds in flight.

Edited January 19, 2021 by ravinj

[Alistairm]

Lovely post @eab

My two cents, for what it's worth with the usual caveats (YMMV, personal taste, subjective etc) is that if I was choosing between the SL2 and the SL2-S I would take the SL2. 

I own and regularly use an SL2, a SL2-S (obviously recent), an M10R and M10M. 

Like you, I am highly enamoured of the way the M10R renders. Much of that has to do with M glass of course, but having owned many generations of M bodies, including the standard M10, the M10R's sensor gives me a "look" and three dimensionality that I like straight out of camera.  Indeed, I had started to use my X1D as my walkaround camera until the M10 for a while, but virtually haven't touched it since the M10R arrived. 

I appreciate, and respect, that many SL2 users seems to feel the same way about the SL2-S that I did comparing the M10 to the M10R... I subtlety, but distinctly preferred the rendering of one over the other, in particular the straight our of camera results, and consensus from peoplle whose opinions I value seems to be that they prefer the SL2-S in the same way. It is still early days, but I don't yet have that same "wow" reaction splitting the SL2 and SL2-S that I did with the M10 and M10R. And for that reason, if I was keeping one it would be the SL2 because the increased resolution matters more to me than the advantages of the 24MP sensor. 

*****

On as slightly separate note, I think the SL2-S may put the nail in the coffin of my Hasselblad X1D experience. Having two L mount bodies, and one that has high ISO capability and both of which are fast with amazing EVF is proving very enjoyable. And Leica's L mount alliance has me hooked as a customer. How good and how cheap are these Sigma Art series lenses? I don't need the high sync speeds of the Hasselblad leaf shutters lenses much, and I'm actually worried about the longevity of the XCD platform... the sensor in the camera is very old now, while the form factor is great, the glacial pace of shooting is awful, sensor dust is a constant plague once you add the zoom (which is excellent) and which I did, the premise of the system (super small with incredible IQ) falls away and the platform seems to be teetering on the brink of becoming a (very expensive) footnote in photographic history. So the combination of the delicious rendering of the M10R and the high ISO capability of the SL2-S may have put the XCD out of business for my usage... I'll have to do at least some astro to work this out for sure though! 

[beewee]

18 hours ago, NicholasT said:

Possibly most important advantage of a blended OEM /Third Party lens acquisition strategy, is that it allows one to invest in few select lens (primes?) i.e. the real “keepers” in the long run. For many Leica shooters that may be M glass. In my case it's the SL primes.

I feel the same about this. If Sigma wasn’t in the Alliance, I don’t think I would get into the L-mount system. As far as bodies go, having been an M shooter for over 10yrs with a fairly complete set of M lenses that I like, I’d definitely go for an Leica body. For L-mount lenses though, Sigma has a few unique lenses that have no equivalent options from Panasonic or Leica. A  good example is the 14-24mm DG DN zoom which is great for astrophotography. As far as SL lenses go, the primes have a very unique modern look with the smooth bokeh and low contrast OOF areas that I don’t think any other lens (even SL zooms) can replicate. To me, these will become classics (assuming they keep working 30+ years from now) whereas the current Leica SL zooms, although offering better sharpness compared to their Panasonic and Sigma equivalents is 2-3x more expensive and doesn’t seem to have a rendering that stands out from the other options.

For me, it’s nice to have a sharp lens with good micro contrast if you’re printing but most images these days are consumed digitally and are compressed. For this reason, most subtle improvements in micro contrast will be completely destroyed and go unappreciated when the images are shared digitally. On the other hand, a lens that offers a unique rendering/drawing/bokeh can be appreciated even on an iPad and that to me is very appealing.

In other words, if I needed a decent zoom, I would probably go with a Sigma or Panasonic option and put the money I save into the real unique lenses like the SL primes.

Edited January 19, 2021 by beewee

[eab]

10 hours ago, ravinj said:

>So I am going to noodle on this a little more in order to determine which of the two cameras is the best place to start to replace my A7R4 for general travel photography, for ME.

As you noted, only you can decide this.

My 2 cents from MY perspective:

I have used all of the cameras you mention including SL2-S and SL2, except M10-R (I do have the the M10-P) + Fuji GFX 50R. I wouldn't rule out A7RIV for general photography or even as a main camera. In fact, long ago Sony A7RII was my main camera and with Zeiss Batis and Sony GM lenses, the results were and still are top-notch. The reason I reentered the Leica world was M lenses and thankfully I never sold the key M jewels.

After trying the SL2-S for a couple of weeks (thanks to a friendly Leica dealer), I decided to keep my SL2. I do not shoot above ISO 800 since I can keep the shutter speeds very low with IBIS and still get tripod equivalent sharpness. I did not find any advantage to the SL2-S over the SL2 for my use cases and I would take higher resolution any given day. This debate is same as CD ("clinical") vs vinyl ("natural") when CDs first came out. Higher resolution and resulting detail in the photos is taken as something not natural - not an unsurprising reaction since this is surpassing what human eye would see naturally without pixel peeping.

As for M10-R or M10 or SL2 or SL-2 in general producing something magical that Sony cannot, I would attribute it to post processing and how one uses the equipment. People also believe that "oxygen free" copper wire somehow gives better audio quality that vanilla copper wire.

Lastly, don't underestimate "carriability" - SL (any flavor) with SL primes is a beast compared to M series. In many cases, the "best" equipment remains in the car or at home and the things that one actually carries are the those that are lightweight, small and capable of excellent results with no compromise in IQ. For ME, only M and Leica Q2 meet this criteria of  "carriability" where I tend to hike 10+ miles over medium to difficult terrain and every gram matters. If given a choice of only one camera that I can take on a hike or a long day-trip, it will be the Q2. But then I don't shoot wildlife or birds in flight.

HI raving,

Thank you for the comments on the SL2 vs SL2-S, I was thinking about your comment and remember the first time a saw a news cast broadcasted in HD on an HD capable television, it was very odd feeling and to this day there are times when it is hard to view an HD broadcast.  At first, when I read your post I thought you were saying that there is no difference in the look of high res vs a lower res image, but that isn't what you said.  You said it just looks different and perhaps less natural.  Did I read this right?  I have taken a little time to try to understand this, it seems based on a study that the human eye has an effective pixel count of 576megapixels but human systems are "analog" so this doesn't really translate clearly.  I guess all that one can infer from this is that sometimes very high resolution photos can look odd.  Obviously the sharpness can be smoothed out in post processing/printing, on the other hand it is hard to add "real" detail post capture.

I totally understand and agree with your comments regarding "cariability", it is one of the concerns I have with the SL system as a whole.  I am hoping that I can find a reasonable solution with either with M lenses or Sigma.  I have heard that Leica is working on a 24-70 ( or similar fl) which is more compact, I am hoping this is a reality.

 

[ravinj]

>You said it just looks different and perhaps less natural.  Did I read this right? 

I wouldn't call it less natural, but rather some people MAY find it less natural. I don't. Many times when I show pictures of US SouthWest with that unique red tint in the landscape people who haven't been there think it is unreal. I like details. I also like being able to crop and it has come in handy more than once. Scaled to same size, there isn't really anything "different" b/w SL2-S vs SL2. As I said, I don't do high ISO, so for me, shooting at ISO 12,500 or 50,000 is not my use case. Colors and looks can be tweaked to taste. I am sure there is a need for ISO 25,000 somewhere for someone, just like there is a need to go 0-60 in 2.5 seconds

>I am hoping that I can find a reasonable solution with either with M lenses or Sigma

While M lenses work very well on the SL2, it is hard to beat M10 (and I am sure M10-R) when the primary use case is M lens. I don't feel there is anything special or unique about SL2 or SL2-S. But certainly M10/M10-R and Q2 fall into my uniqueness category with no equivalent (size/weight/iq/pleasure in using).

>I have heard that Leica is working on a 24-70 ( or similar fl) which is more compact

Let us see. The 24-90 is a beast, I got rid of it. Summicrons 35/50/90 are great, but again, try putting them mounted on any of SL/2/S against the Q2 or M10/R with 50 M APO and you will know which one to carry!

Again, as they say "YMMV". Good luck with your next step, but IMHO you already have the best of the best in your collection today.....

EDIT: ....so your decision is likely not going to be based on better IQ but other factors.

Edited January 19, 2021 by ravinj

[Reggie]

22 hours ago, NicholasT said:

Last but not least I strongly recommend you check out the Sigma I series lens. The Sigma 45mm F2.8 is my absolute favorite city/travel walk around lens. When I'm not shooting landscapes, that lens is permanently attached to my camera. I will be receiving the new 35mm F2 this week and can't wait to put it to good use. I may ultimately sell the 45mm in favor of the faster 35mm ( 35mm & 45mm probably too close to keep both). 

I hope you won't be disappointed with the 35mm I-series but I fear you will be. It does not render like the 45mm does. Sigma appear to have traded off the smooth focus transition and OOF zone of the 45mm for extra sharpnesss in the 35mm which has led to worse LoCA and terribly busy OOF areas. The 65mm is better than the 35mm in these regards and the 24mm seems to be closest to what the 45mm provides - even down to the wide open 'glow' at close focus.

Please let us know how you get on as I haven't been able to get my hands on any of the new I-series yet but I love my 45mm and will probably get the 24mm to complement it.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Reggie

[eab]

12 hours ago, Alistairm said:

Lovely post @eab

My two cents, for what it's worth with the usual caveats (YMMV, personal taste, subjective etc) is that if I was choosing between the SL2 and the SL2-S I would take the SL2. 

I own and regularly use an SL2, a SL2-S (obviously recent), an M10R and M10M. 

Like you, I am highly enamoured of the way the M10R renders. Much of that has to do with M glass of course, but having owned many generations of M bodies, including the standard M10, the M10R's sensor gives me a "look" and three dimensionality that I like straight out of camera.  Indeed, I had started to use my X1D as my walkaround camera until the M10 for a while, but virtually haven't touched it since the M10R arrived. 

I appreciate, and respect, that many SL2 users seems to feel the same way about the SL2-S that I did comparing the M10 to the M10R... I subtlety, but distinctly preferred the rendering of one over the other, in particular the straight our of camera results, and consensus from peoplle whose opinions I value seems to be that they prefer the SL2-S in the same way. It is still early days, but I don't yet have that same "wow" reaction splitting the SL2 and SL2-S that I did with the M10 and M10R. And for that reason, if I was keeping one it would be the SL2 because the increased resolution matters more to me than the advantages of the 24MP sensor. 

*****

On as slightly separate note, I think the SL2-S may put the nail in the coffin of my Hasselblad X1D experience. Having two L mount bodies, and one that has high ISO capability and both of which are fast with amazing EVF is proving very enjoyable. And Leica's L mount alliance has me hooked as a customer. How good and how cheap are these Sigma Art series lenses? I don't need the high sync speeds of the Hasselblad leaf shutters lenses much, and I'm actually worried about the longevity of the XCD platform... the sensor in the camera is very old now, while the form factor is great, the glacial pace of shooting is awful, sensor dust is a constant plague once you add the zoom (which is excellent) and which I did, the premise of the system (super small with incredible IQ) falls away and the platform seems to be teetering on the brink of becoming a (very expensive) footnote in photographic history. So the combination of the delicious rendering of the M10R and the high ISO capability of the SL2-S may have put the XCD out of business for my usage... I'll have to do at least some astro to work this out for sure though! 

Hi Alistairm,

Thank you for the kind words and advice, in some ways this thread has been a bit cathartic for me, we have been locked down pretty hard and I am enjoying the interaction.  This discussion parallels similar discussions regarding the M10 and M10R but it is almost opposite for some folks, as many find the rendering of the R preferable even though it is a higher resolution sensor.  For me, it suggests ( confirms would be to strong ) that it is more about the overall package ( sensor, algorithms, micorlenses, etc) than strictly pixel count/density.  There are definitely folks here who find the SL2-S output more pleasing and malleable but there are others who don't find it as compelling. Hopefully I will be able to make that decision for myself as many others have.  As I mentioned before, I really like the ability/flexibility to crop and certainly don't mind the high resolution look of the R.  

I may well be leaning in that direction.....  

I think if it were not for the L-Mount Alliance I would not be considering the SL2 but having options and some market mass make the choice easier.  It sounds like you are settling in for a bit on your current gear selection which is always satisfying.  

Thank you again for the input.

 

[eab]

11 hours ago, beewee said:

I feel the same about this. If Sigma wasn’t in the Alliance, I don’t think I would get into the L-mount system. As far as bodies go, having been an M shooter for over 10yrs with a fairly complete set of M lenses that I like, I’d definitely go for an Leica body. For L-mount lenses though, Sigma has a few unique lenses that have no equivalent options from Panasonic or Leica. A  good example is the 14-24mm DG DN zoom which is great for astrophotography. As far as SL lenses go, the primes have a very unique modern look with the smooth bokeh and low contrast OOF areas that I don’t think any other lens (even SL zooms) can replicate. To me, these will become classics (assuming they keep working 30+ years from now) whereas the current Leica SL zooms, although offering better sharpness compared to their Panasonic and Sigma equivalents is 2-3x more expensive and doesn’t seem to have a rendering that stands out from the other options.

For me, it’s nice to have a sharp lens with good micro contrast if you’re printing but most images these days are consumed digitally and are compressed. For this reason, most subtle improvements in micro contrast will be completely destroyed and go unappreciated when the images are shared digitally. On the other hand, a lens that offers a unique rendering/drawing/bokeh can be appreciated even on an iPad and that to me is very appealing.

In other words, if I needed a decent zoom, I would probably go with a Sigma or Panasonic option and put the money I save into the real unique lenses like the SL primes.

Hi Beewee,

Thank you for the comments.  Yes the L-Alliance makes the decision easier.  Your comments regarding the Sigma lenses unique offerings will cause me to look at little harder at what that means, in some ways I have been focused on the body and knowing there is flexibility in lens selection has made that an easier decision.  I think once I settle on the body, I will need to do more thinking about the lenses and work out a little road map based not he current offerings.  Your comment regarding the unique rendering that the Summicrons provide vs the more generic Leica Zoom offering is one I really need to consider.  I was going to start with the 24-90 and one of the bodies, but it sounds like I should not make the decision with out some more thought. I am sure I will purchase some primes if I enjoy the using the body and zoom but it will come after the zoom as I was planning on using M primes initially.  I am going to look around on the forum for discussions on the zooms. Thank you for specifically pointing that out!!

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, Reggie said:

I hope you won't be disappointed with the 35mm I-series but I fear you will be. It does not render like the 45mm does. Sigma appear to have traded off the smooth focus transition and OOF zone of the 45mm for extra sharpnesss in the 35mm which has led to worse LoCA and terribly busy OOF areas. The 65mm is better than the 35mm in these regards and the 24mm seems to be closest to what the 45mm provides - even down to the wide open 'glow' at close focus.

Please let us know how you get on as I haven't been able to get my hands on any of the new I-series yet but I love my 45mm and will probably get the 24mm to complement it.

Is there are review that states that 35mm "has led to worse LoCA and terribly busy OOF areas"? Thanks!