GFX100S vs SL2/X1D

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor einer Stunde schrieb Simone_DF:

You're looking at it from the point of view of somebody who has already purchased a SLx camera, but you have to look at it from the point of view of a new buyer.

Let me put it this way: what are people interested in joining the L mount from scratch going to buy in winter 2021? An SL2 whose AF we don't even know if it will (or can) get improvements or a brand new Panasonic S2r at half the price and double the performance? 

this is too much for me. speculating how a s2r (if it will be called like that) which might appear winter 2021 (if it does) compare to a SL2 (knowing there might not also exist another camera from Leica), and then we speculate if this is the case, the S2r will be half price and double performance.

Wow!  

 

[Tailwagger]

 

46 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

... if this is the case, the S2r will be half price and double performance. 

I wouldn't necessarily assume that the next Pano will hold the line on price. If, somehow, perhaps unlikely but bear with me, they manage to get into the same feature and performance zip code as the newly released A1, the bar on max price on mainstream flagship cameras has already been raised above Leica levels with the A1 arriving at $6500. 

 

[Guest]

Does the Q2 auto-focus struggle in the same way as the SL cameras?

I ask because in reviews the SL cameras AF is often criticized but not often mentioned in Q2 reviews.

I believe they are both contrast detection AF cameras.

[LD_50]

6 minutes ago, steve 1959 said:

Does the Q2 auto-focus struggle in the same way as the SL cameras?

I ask because in reviews the SL cameras AF is often criticized but not often mentioned in Q2 reviews.

I believe they are both contrast detection AF cameras.

This is a point that’s been raised before. The Q2 doesn’t have any advanced AF but it’s rarely brought up. The expectation for a 28mm single lens camera is different because the use case is not typically considered one where AFc and tracking would be needed. 

Somehow it escapes many that the SL, SL2, and SL2-S may be used in the same ways as the Q and Q2, for photos that don’t require advanced AFc and tracking. Would it be nice if all these cameras had leading AF ability? If course, but they’re still very useful without this. 

[Succisa75]

30 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

This is a point that’s been raised before. The Q2 doesn’t have any advanced AF but it’s rarely brought up. The expectation for a 28mm single lens camera is different because the use case is not typically considered one where AFc and tracking would be needed. 

Somehow it escapes many that the SL, SL2, and SL2-S may be used in the same ways as the Q and Q2, for photos that don’t require advanced AFc and tracking. Would it be nice if all these cameras had leading AF ability? If course, but they’re still very useful without this. 

Yes the Q2 suffers from the same AF system of the SL2. However the Q2 gets a pass probably because it’s mainly a point and shoot camera. It’s not a professional mirrorless interchangeable camera system. 
 

The SL2/ -S is designed more more “professional” use cases. The Q2 can of course be used professionally, but with one lens it is limited and thus it’s segmented to be more of a “lifestyle” camera. 

If Panasonic does come out with a mark 2 lineup of their S cameras then Leica will more than likely follow. 

 

 

[Guest]

There is a youtube wedding photographer called brad wakefied who is ditching the SL as his main wedding camera because of poor auto-focus but takes his Q to weddings as a secondary camera  and describes the AF as "snappy",, he is baffled as to why its "10 times better at AF than the SL".

I am supposed to be able to do links but somehow still fail but he only has about 5 videos on his channel and he clearly was desperate for the SL to work for him.

Maybe the wide angle of the Q helps compared to say the 50 or 75 on the SL?

[SJH]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, LD_50 said:

I am looking at this from the point of view of someone who chose the SL system over all the others. I don’t have a huge SL lens investment so I could switch without a large loss. I wrote an entire thread about how I viewed camera system choice. 
 

I think you’re looking at this from the perspective that Leica will need to outperform the others in AF to stay viable. I don’t agree. They never have before in digital cameras and likely never will. Price alone keeps Leica out of most people’s list of potential choices. 

I think your point is totally correct in the M & Q world but hey in the mirrorless shark pool it’s a different story. Let’s face it for the professional 30 to 40 year old photographer the view is that ‘I just leave it in wide tracking,  it’s so good it works it all out for me’. Now if Leica have done extensive research and have found that there is a commercially viable market to address for the SL2 that will be happy with very good AFs but bottom ranked AFc, then the SL line has a great future - I fear though that this is a very rapidly shrinking ‘opportunity’.

Panasonic are ‘at the gates’ so to speak, in other words get the AFc cracked to a market acceptable level or just leave it to Sony, Canon, Fuji and perhaps Nikon. The S2R is going to have to be pretty good to achieve this and they’ve already seen Nikon stumble for example with the suicidal ‘one slot’ and sub par AF route with the first Z’s. Leica in the SL world are reliant on Panasonic and if they faulter now it doesn’t bode well for us all. If Panasonic can’t convince people to buy the S2R or S2 over an R6, R5, R1, Z1, GFX100s, A1 and A7IV then I’m afraid the future is dark for the SL line whatever we think about making do with good AFs, the build quality, colour science, M lens compatibility etc.

Given just how many posts this thread has attracted indicates that really Leica and Panasonic stand at the crossroads today between oblivion (for the SL and S1 & S1R lines) and remaining vaguely competitive. We can all meander around how wonderful the build quality is, AFs like we used in 2015, colour science etc but if Canon, Sony, Fuji and Nikon are winning every time in the AFC and tracking department then Panasonic are about to go the way of the Titanic followed swiftly by the Leica SL2 line.

I for one really don’t want this to happen so Leica go to do some Leica stuff and stop this from happening!!!

[LD_50]

11 minutes ago, SJH said:

I think your point is totally correct in the M & Q world but hey in the mirrorless shark pool it’s a different story. Let’s face it for the professional 30 to 40 year old photographer the view is that ‘I just leave it in wide tracking,  it’s so good it works it all out for me’. Now if Leica have done extensive research and have found that there is a commercially viable market to address for the SL2 that will be happy with very good AFs but bottom ranked AFc, then the SL line has a great future - I fear though that this is a very rapidly shrinking ‘opportunity’.

I don't know what the "professional 30 to 40 year old photographer" has to do with AFc and tracking capability or leaving the settings in "wide tracking." If you meant to leave out the age and include "sports" or "action" or "wildlife" I could agree that Leica isn't going to be successful in reaching that market. The lens choices alone preclude market penetration, regardless of AF capability. There are none of the key telephotos in the L-mount system. As far as leaving in "wide tracking" and letting the camera do its thing, that's certainly the attraction of the R5 and A1, along with super high fps that allows selection of stills from video. Leica isn't going after that market and I don't see why they need to in order to remain viable.

15 minutes ago, SJH said:

Given just how many posts this thread has attracted indicates that really Leica and Panasonic stand at the crossroads today between oblivion (for the SL and S1 & S1R lines) and remaining vaguely competitive. We can all meander around how wonderful the build quality is, AFs like we used in 2015, colour science etc but if Canon, Sony, Fuji and Nikon are winning every time in the AFC and tracking department then Panasonic are about to go the way of the Titanic followed swiftly by the Leica SL2 line.

I can't draw the connection between popularity of "camera vs camera" threads and Leica and Panasonic "standing at the crossroads today between oblivion and remaining vaguely competitive." These threads are popular even when the cameras are very evenly matched in AF capability. See all the R5 vs A1, or the old D5 vs 1Dx III, etc.

I also can't see how "if Canon, Sony, Fuji and Nikon are winning every time in the AFC and tracking department" then Panasonic are going to fail. Is AFc really the only setting you use? Do you think it's the only setting others use?

What made the S1R so attractive when it was announced was not its AFc capability. It was the high resolution, IBIS, build quality, and hi-res mode with smart motion detection. Its size/weight, price, and lens selection keep it from being more popular. Panasonic was wise to introduce the S5 to give photographers a cheaper and smaller point of entry to the system.

I do agree that having a halo product helps. There is always a group of photographers who want the highest level of technology to be available within their brand of choice, even if they don't use the body and lenses that offer it. That's what I think keeps Sony so popular at this point. People buy a Tamron 28-75 but talk about the quality of Sony G lenses. They buy a last generation A7R III but talk about the A1. It's the halo effect and its powerful for marketing. Leica has it in the M line with the Noctilux and the 50/35 Summicron APOs. 

[Mr.Q]

10 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

There is a youtube wedding photographer called brad wakefied who is ditching the SL as his main wedding camera because of poor auto-focus but takes his Q to weddings as a secondary camera  and describes the AF as "snappy",, he is baffled as to why its "10 times better at AF than the SL".

I am supposed to be able to do links but somehow still fail but he only has about 5 videos on his channel and he clearly was desperate for the SL to work for him.

Maybe the wide angle of the Q helps compared to say the 50 or 75 on the SL?

Yes, the Q and Q2 focuses faster than the SL and SL2, probably due to the lens on the Q being both wide (28mm) and fast (F1.7).  That combo usually leads to a fast-focusing lens. 

[LD_50]

17 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

Yes, the Q and Q2 focuses faster than the SL and SL2, probably due to the lens on the Q being both wide (28mm) and fast (F1.7).  That combo usually leads to a fast-focusing lens. 

This may be lens dependent. I haven’t shot the 28 SL so the Q may be faster there, but the 24-90 is for example extremely fast to focus.
 

The width of the lens and the max aperture don’t have much to do with focusing speed in my experience. It’s the design of the lens’s focusing elements and focus motors combined with the camera body.

[Mr.Q]

35 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

This may be lens dependent. I haven’t shot the 28 SL so the Q may be faster there, but the 24-90 is for example extremely fast to focus.
 

The width of the lens and the max aperture don’t have much to do with focusing speed in my experience. It’s the design of the lens’s focusing elements and focus motors combined with the camera body.

Well for one, a faster lens gets more light on the sensor which is an advantage in low light situations. Secondly, wider lenses have smaller elements. Lenses with large elements (ie 85/1.4's or 50 Summilux-SL) are typically slower.

[LD_50]

Just now, Mr.Q said:

Well for one, a faster lens gets more light on the sensor which is an advantage in low light situations. Secondly, wider lenses have smaller elements. Lenses with large elements (ie 85/1.4's or 50 Summilux-SL) are typically slower.

That’s simplifying things to a degree that doesn’t hold up. The 24-90 for example focuses extremely quickly because the elements that move to achieve focus are designed to be very small. 

My Nikon 200 f/2 focused much much quicker than my Nikon 58 f/1.4. Wider lens, smaller lens, less glass, larger aperture, slower focus. 

[Mr.Q]

Not really. I'm just talking about physics. With all things being equal, a fast and wide lens would have faster AF than just about any other lens. It has inherent advantages that works in it's favor. Of course there are outliers but does that even matter for this discussion?  The Q is faster than the 24-90 btw.  Especially in dim situations.

[LD_50]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

Not really. I'm just talking about physics. With all things being equal, a fast and wide lens would have faster AF than just about any other lens. It has inherent advantages that works in it's favor. Of course there are outliers but does that even matter for this discussion?  The Q is faster than the 24-90 btw.  Especially in dim situations.

You said wide lenses focus more quickly because they have smaller elements. That’s just not true because longer focal length lenses are often designed with very small focusing elements. The SL lenses offer examples. These aren’t outliers, check out wide angle primes from each company and compare to their fastest focusing lenses. 

I didn’t find the Q to be faster than the 24-90, though I’ve not done any measurements to prove the point. 

[SJH]

10 hours ago, LD_50 said:

I don't know what the "professional 30 to 40 year old photographer" has to do with AFc and tracking capability or leaving the settings in "wide tracking." If you meant to leave out the age and include "sports" or "action" or "wildlife" I could agree that Leica isn't going to be successful in reaching that market. The lens choices alone preclude market penetration, regardless of AF capability. There are none of the key telephotos in the L-mount system. As far as leaving in "wide tracking" and letting the camera do its thing, that's certainly the attraction of the R5 and A1, along with super high fps that allows selection of stills from video. Leica isn't going after that market and I don't see why they need to in order to remain viable.

I can't draw the connection between popularity of "camera vs camera" threads and Leica and Panasonic "standing at the crossroads today between oblivion and remaining vaguely competitive." These threads are popular even when the cameras are very evenly matched in AF capability. See all the R5 vs A1, or the old D5 vs 1Dx III, etc.

I also can't see how "if Canon, Sony, Fuji and Nikon are winning every time in the AFC and tracking department" then Panasonic are going to fail. Is AFc really the only setting you use? Do you think it's the only setting others use?

What made the S1R so attractive when it was announced was not its AFc capability. It was the high resolution, IBIS, build quality, and hi-res mode with smart motion detection. Its size/weight, price, and lens selection keep it from being more popular. Panasonic was wise to introduce the S5 to give photographers a cheaper and smaller point of entry to the system.

I do agree that having a halo product helps. There is always a group of photographers who want the highest level of technology to be available within their brand of choice, even if they don't use the body and lenses that offer it. That's what I think keeps Sony so popular at this point. People buy a Tamron 28-75 but talk about the quality of Sony G lenses. They buy a last generation A7R III but talk about the A1. It's the halo effect and its powerful for marketing. Leica has it in the M line with the Noctilux and the 50/35 Summicron APOs. 

I understand your points and I was endeavouring to be more generic than my own personal requirements or others in here i.e. in previous threads I've talked about coming from using AFs more often than AFc personally but what many photographers expect today is hassle free AFc, whereby they just have it set and off they go. This is of course possible with the Sony's, Canon's and Nikon's now with the added benefit that they've also got closer to Leica in terms of colour science, handling, menu's etc as the traditional Leica strengths..

Therefore I was addressing the wider issue of the SL2's market potentially not being as wide as it was at launch as a result of the competitors launches over recent months. Whether AFc is relevant to the majority of us in here or not wasn't really what I was getting at, it was more that good AFc performance has become more and more of a prerequisite in many photographers buying criteria now because it's matured and generally works well in these new bodies and lens lineups i.e. it exists and won't go away. I'm not saying that's a must for the many people who have posted here but it is a wider commercial issue for us if we wish the Leica SL line to continue successfully (and by default the Panasonic line) that's all.

Edited March 6, 2021 by SJH

[Zeleifa]

12 hours ago, LD_50 said:

I don't know what the "professional 30 to 40 year old photographer" has to do with AFc and tracking capability or leaving the settings in "wide tracking." If you meant to leave out the age and include "sports" or "action" or "wildlife" I could agree that Leica isn't going to be successful in reaching that market. The lens choices alone preclude market penetration, regardless of AF capability. There are none of the key telephotos in the L-mount system. As far as leaving in "wide tracking" and letting the camera do its thing, that's certainly the attraction of the R5 and A1, along with super high fps that allows selection of stills from video. Leica isn't going after that market and I don't see why they need to in order to remain viable.

I can't draw the connection between popularity of "camera vs camera" threads and Leica and Panasonic "standing at the crossroads today between oblivion and remaining vaguely competitive." These threads are popular even when the cameras are very evenly matched in AF capability. See all the R5 vs A1, or the old D5 vs 1Dx III, etc.

I also can't see how "if Canon, Sony, Fuji and Nikon are winning every time in the AFC and tracking department" then Panasonic are going to fail. Is AFc really the only setting you use? Do you think it's the only setting others use?

What made the S1R so attractive when it was announced was not its AFc capability. It was the high resolution, IBIS, build quality, and hi-res mode with smart motion detection. Its size/weight, price, and lens selection keep it from being more popular. Panasonic was wise to introduce the S5 to give photographers a cheaper and smaller point of entry to the system.

I do agree that having a halo product helps. There is always a group of photographers who want the highest level of technology to be available within their brand of choice, even if they don't use the body and lenses that offer it. That's what I think keeps Sony so popular at this point. People buy a Tamron 28-75 but talk about the quality of Sony G lenses. They buy a last generation A7R III but talk about the A1. It's the halo effect and its powerful for marketing. Leica has it in the M line with the Noctilux and the 50/35 Summicron APOs. 

Very well said.

[DadDadDaddyo]

Well, as usual, I'm late to the thread.

But I want to chip in; I'm a long time Leica user (50+ years), an SL and SL2 owner (along with a nice set of wonderful SL lenses), and an owner and enthusiastic user of Fujifilm medium format, owning the GFX50R and the GFX100, along with almost all of the GFX lenses (everything but the 120, I think). I still shoot Leica 35mm, as well as a Monochrom, too, so I still keep a stable of Threadmount and M-mount lenses as well.

I'm blessed with a rich abundance of optical assets. I use and love them all, so I feel I'm in a position to comment.

First, and truly foremost, a system revolves around, and is defined by, lenses - not bodies. Lenses outlive bodies, by a long shot, and especially nowadays. What makes both the SL system and the GFX system amazing is the glass they have put in my hands. I keep the lenses and gradually swap out the bodies. I think of the process as revolving around putting the body on the lens, not the other way around. Landscape, for example. Pick the lens for the scene, then put a body on it that'll capture what you want at the resolution you require.

First the GFX system: The GFX100 is a workmanlike body. It's nobody's handling pride and joy, but it's great as a set piece on a tripod, and reasonable smooth handheld, thanks to the image stabilization (although if you really want all that resolution, you really need to park it). The GFX lenses aren't even breathing hard or popping a sweat at 100 megapixels. They've got resolution to go, and I'll bet that Fujifilm's got more bodies in development. They produce truly gorgeous images. The lenses have defined the system for me, and the GFX system is a great offering to the craft of serious photography.

Fujifilm's regular release of promised lenses for the GFX system has been a very impressive thing to watch. They release them, I buy them. In a fairly short time, I've built the best wide-ranging, comprehensive suite of lenses for medium format I've ever seen. In every respect they stand alongside the giants of medium format like Zeiss's offerings for Hasselblad (of which I also harbor a few examples for times I feel like shooting 120). This is great, great glass.

Now the SL system. Of course, I started with the SL and the 24-90, because that WAS the system. And, it was almost enough. The SL plus the 24-80 really might be the only thing a photographer would ever need. (Just like the M body plus a 35 (plus maybe a 50, and maybe a 90)). The first prime, the 50 f/1.4, was a phenomenon. I craved one, but didn't buy. Then the Summicrons started appearing. Then the SL2. Well. The SL2 plus any of the SL Summicrons simply wipes up the floor with any of the GFX bodies, with any of the GFX lenses, when it comes to handling. I have the 35 and the 50, and they're glorious on the SL2.

Such an abundance of splendid tools. I've decided not to choose.

Ok. If forced to let them all go but one, l would be hard-pressed to arrive at any decision more, or less, defensible. All the choices are that good. There are areas of specific strength. The Fujifilm system is physically large. The lenses are big. I find the GFX system unmatched for landscape.

But, if forced to select a single all-arounder; if they said, "Pick the body and lens that will be the only ones you can keep, forever," the only choice, in the end, would be the SL2, paired with the 24-90.

Give me those and I'll feel ready for anything.

Edited March 7, 2021 by DadDadDaddyo
small typos

[Jeff S]

8 minutes ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

Well, as usual, I'm late to the thread.

But I want to chip in; I'm a long time Leica user (50+ years), an SL and SL2 owner (along with a nice set of wonderful SL lenses), and an owner and enthusiastic user of Fujifilm medium format, owning the GFX50R and the GFX100, along with almost all of the GFX lenses (everything but the 120, I think). I still shoot Leica 35mm, as well as a Monochrom, too, so I still keep a stable of Threadmount and M-mount lenses as well.

I'm blessed with a rich abundance of optical assets. I use and love them all, so I feel I'm in a position to comment.

First, and truly foremost, a system revolves around, and is defined by, lenses - not bodies. Lenses outlive bodies, by a long shot, and especially nowadays. What makes both the SL system and the GFX system amazing is the glass they have put in my hands. I keep the lenses and gradually swap out the bodies. I think of the process as revolving around putting the body on the lens, not the other way around. Landscape, for example. Pick the lens for the scene, then put a body on it that'll capture what you want at the resolution you require.

First the GFX system: The GFX100 is a workmanlike body. It's nobody's handling pride and joy, but it's great as a set piece on a tripod, and reasonable smooth handheld, thanks to the image stabilization (although if you really want all that resolution, you really need to park it). The GFX lenses aren't even breathing hard or popping a sweat at 100 megapixels. They've got resolution to go, and I'll but Fujifilm's got more bodies in development. They produce truly gorgeous images. The lenses have defined the system for me, and the GFX system is a great offering to the craft of serious photography.

Fujifilm's regular release of promised lenses for the GFX system has been a very impressive thing to watch. They release them, I buy them. In a fairly short time, I've built the best wide-ranging, comprehensive suite of lenses for medium format I've ever seen. In every respect they stand alongside the giants of medium format like Zeiss's offerings for Hasselblad (of which I also harbor a few examples for times I feel like shooting 120). This is great, great glass.

Now the SL system. Of course, I started with the SL and the 24-90, because that WAS the system. And, it was almost enough. The SL plus the 24-80 really might be the only thing a photographer would ever need. (Just like the M body plus a 35 (plus maybe a 50, and maybe a 90)). The first prime, the 50 f/1.4, was a phenomenon. I craved one, but didn't buy. Then the Summicrons started appearing. Then the SL2. Well. The SL2 plus any of the SL Summicrons simply wipes up the floor with any of the GFX bodies, with any of the GFX lenses, when it comes to handling.

Such an abundance of splendid tools. I've decided not to choose.

Ok. If forced to let them all go but one, l would be hard-pressed to arrive at any decision more, or less, defensible. All the choices are that good. There are areas of specific strength. The Fujifilm system is physically large. The lenses are big. I find the GFX system unmatched for landscape.

But, if forced to select a single all-arounder; if they said, "Pick the body and lens that will be the only ones you can keep, forever," the only choice, in the end, would be the SL2, paired with the 24-90.

Give me those and I'll feel ready for anything.

Seems like the time to rotate bodies again and get the better handling GFX 100s.

Jeff

[Succisa75]

Well said. 
 

If I may add one more thing which is why this topic has numerous posts is the size of the 100s vs the 100. The compact size of the 100S for medium format now challenges those with some full frame camera systems. 
 

just yesterday met up with a friend who has the SL2-S with the 24-90. I had the 100S and 80 1.7 put them side by side and the Leica was a heavier system. Of course this is due to the lens and the bodies feel relatively the same in weight but that’s impressive for Medium Format. 
 

The 100 was not an everyday carry due to size and weight, the 100S has changed that. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ZHNL]

14 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

Not really. I'm just talking about physics. With all things being equal, a fast and wide lens would have faster AF than just about any other lens. It has inherent advantages that works in it's favor. Of course there are outliers but does that even matter for this discussion?  The Q is faster than the 24-90 btw.  Especially in dim situations.

Faster than 24-90 at 28mm?