Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica SL3 Reporter ×
🇺🇸🇬🇧 New: Leica SL3 Reporter ×

SL2 or SL2-s

cirke

By cirke
in Leica SL System

 Share

Recommended Posts

cirke

cirke

Posted
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

long time M user I currently have a CL and a Sony A7R3
I'm thinking of reselling everything to get a SL2 or SL2-s
What are the arguments in favor of the SL2-s? because I would prefer the 50mp of the SL2  (I wont use M lenses)

 

thanks

Edited by cirke
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Alistairm
Alistairm

I have both cameras. I’ve really enjoyed the SL2-S and even more enjoyed having two native L mount bodies. If I had to choose one to keep it would be the SL2. As you’ve said you prefer the higher reso

Slender
Slender

Duh. From the fact that Leica SL2 is infamous for draining itself faster with non Leica things attached to it. It is not clear if it's an issue body to body or if FW 2.0 fixed this with Sigma and Pana

LocalHero1953
LocalHero1953

In brief my answers to your question are: SL2-S has better colours and better low light / high ISO performance 24mp: I don't need more, and I don't want larger files To which there i

LocalHero1953

LocalHero1953

Posted
Posted

 

In brief my answers to your question are:

  1. SL2-S has better colours and better low light / high ISO performance
  2. 24mp: I don't need more, and I don't want larger files

To which there is the speculation that the better AF for the SL2-S promised in firmware coming down the line may or may not be added to the SL2.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cobram

Cobram

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

 

In brief my answers to your question are:

  1. SL2-S has better colours and better low light / high ISO performance
  2. 24mp: I don't need more, and I don't want larger files

To which there is the speculation that the better AF for the SL2-S promised in firmware coming down the line may or may not be added to the SL2.

Agree. For me there is no question, SL2-s is the camera for me. As a SL 601 owner I don't have to rush with the change... 🙂

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
augustwest100

augustwest100

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, cirke said:

long time M user I currently have a CL and a Sony A7R3
I'm thinking of reselling everything to get a SL2 or SL2-s
What are the arguments in favor of the SL2-s? because I would prefer the 50mp of the SL2  (I wont use M lenses)

 

thanks

Right there with ya! I have the Sony A9. Trying to decide between M and SL2/SL2S, and leaning SL2. Was thinking that with SL2, I can perhaps use some crop lenses like the 55-135 when traveling for some easy extra zoom. For me, I do plan to use M lenses on the SL, so the question is more about whether the higher megapixel count will impact my plans to experiment with older M lenses. I don't need to pay a premium for the latest APO lenses, and somewhat prefer the unique signatures of the older glass. I would be going with SL2 unless the opinion of the masses that have used both would say SL2S is better for that purpose. Good luck with your choice, and if you will do as I say, not as I do, then don't over think it - go with the one that inspires you! Ha. Wish I could take my own advice!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Simone_DF

Simone_DF

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, cirke said:

long time M user I currently have a CL and a Sony A7R3
I'm thinking of reselling everything to get a SL2 or SL2-s
What are the arguments in favor of the SL2-s? because I would prefer the 50mp of the SL2  (I wont use M lenses)

As a CL user, you could keep your lenses and use them in cropped mode on the SL2 and you'd still get 20mp. 

On the SL2 you can crop a lot, depending on your personal needs of course. I know that for me a 90mm would be enough and I don't have to buy and carry for example a 70-200.

On the other hand, if you happen to shot often in low light situations, the SL2-S high iso performance would be preferable.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
eab

eab

Posted
Posted

I just went through this decision process and landed on the SL2.  I think the main reason was the ability to crop and to use my TL lenses.  Thus far I have been using the 24-90 almost exclusively as I really enjoy the flexibility of the zoom and the IQ is great.  It is definitely heavier than any camera I have owned but most of my photo walks have not exceeded 3 hours and it has not been. a problem.  What I can tell you is I really like "using" the camera.  If feels really good in hand and it is a pleasure to operate.  I was always fiddling around with the A7r4, the SL2 is just more enjoyable to use.  I am not a small person and the size of the controls of the SL2 make it much easier to operate to point where it is a very enjoyable experience.  The M is smaller but not as "flexible".

I haven't found noise to be a problem yet which is one of the reasons I was considering the SL2S but I really haven't shot at dusk.  I am up in the northeast and even on a cloudy, gray day at 4pm, I have not wished for better low light performance.  I suspect if it was 5-6pm I would start bumping into issues at F9 as I really try to keep the iso below 3200.

I can't comment on the how it compares to the SL2-S as I don't have one.  I guess for me I wanted to start with the high res camera as I tend to crop a bit, as I am a lazy photographer and don't enjoy changing lenses every  10 minutes.  I do have an M10R and it definitely has better highlight and shadow recovery, I suspect this might be better on the SL2S.

I am happy to answer any other questions if you think I could be of help ... just know that I have not been shooting all my life and would consider myself a beginner, especially when compared to some of the folks here..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Alistairm

Alistairm

Posted
Posted

I have both cameras. I’ve really enjoyed the SL2-S and even more enjoyed having two native L mount bodies. If I had to choose one to keep it would be the SL2. As you’ve said you prefer the higher resolution of the SL2 the decision should be pretty easy for you. There’s not much to choose between them really. Images are excellent from both, UI is the same. The SL2-S has a couple of stops more usable ISO and the SL2 is higher resolution (and consequentially bigger files, less effective buffer etc). It really comes down to whether you prefer a couple of more stops of usable ISO or more resolution. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
RBB

RBB

Posted
Posted

Love the SL resolution and ability to crop, high ISO is good enough for me. If the promised CAF improvement in the SL2s update doesn't com to the SL2, that would be a real bummer. But then I would rather wait for the future SL3 that possibly combines all advantages in one body.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Simone_DF

Simone_DF

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, RBB said:

Love the SL resolution and ability to crop, high ISO is good enough for me. If the promised CAF improvement in the SL2s update doesn't com to the SL2, that would be a real bummer. But then I would rather wait for the future SL3 that possibly combines all advantages in one body.

But if they don't fix issues in the SL2, what makes you think they won't repeat the same with a SL3? Ie launch a SL3, discover issues, launch a SL3-S one year later without addressing the SL3?

Note, I'm confident the AF improvements will come to the SL2 as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuart Richardson

Stuart Richardson

Posted
Posted

The SL2 has color second only to the S006, in my experience. I have not used the SL2s, but I am hard pressed to imagine how it could be better. But I think color is the most subjective of all criteria in a camera, so that is something that is hard to evaluate through others' eyes. For my work, the SL2 is a no-brainer. Most of my work is landscape, art reproduction and studio work. The extra resolution is very useful and low light is not an issue in general, as I am either on a tripod in the lowest light conditions, or I am using flash. I think the S1 or S5 is in some ways another option than the SL2S if you are concerned...I have the SL2 for all the general photography where the resolution is needed, and for video work and extreme low light the S1 is there. It has better video than any Leica, costs less than half, and can serve as a more or less native backup while costing a fraction of a single Leica lens. The image quality and color of the panasonics is great, and while not quite as nice as the Leicas, they are pro-level gear. In any case, best to try them all yourself, if possible.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RBB

RBB

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

But if they don't fix issues in the SL2, what makes you think they won't repeat the same with a SL3? Ie launch a SL3, discover issues, launch a SL3-S one year later without addressing the SL3?

Just some faith 😉

19 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Note, I'm confident the AF improvements will come to the SL2 as well.

I assume that to

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...