Better for travel photography SL2 or SL2s?

[Rivarola]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all been reading a lot of posts I am an m10 shooter I use a 28 and 50 but lately have been having trouble focusing with the M and looking at the sl systems I mainly use the camera for traveling landscapes family portraits Churches museums graduation ceremonies which cámara would you think work better for this ? And should I go with 24 -70 or the 24-90?

Thanks for your answers 

[jaapv]

The SL is not really a suitable travel camera. Too bulky and too heavy. The CL is far more suitable. And the M. Have you looked into the cause of your focusing trouble? With those focal lengths there can hardly be a problem. A simple diopter could be the solution.

[beewee]

Visoflex on the M10 is actually quite decent as well.

[6bit]

I traveled Ireland with an M10 and SL. I used M lenses on both. No way I would travel with L lenses because of the bull. Personal preference. 
 

Going forward, I have a Q2 to travel with and if I need interchangeable lenses, it will be the SL body with M lenses. 

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

With those focal lengths there can hardly be a problem. A simple diopter could be the solution.

Unless there is an RF (or lens) calibration issue. Easy enough to check with LV.

Jeff

[LocalHero1953]

I agree - I would never use a SL for travel - a CL would be much easier.

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I believe saying the SL2/SL2-s is too bulky for travel, get something else, can miss the job. The OP says that he has issues focusing the M. I know that AF has tons of advantages when it comes to stills photography. The miss rate is much lower with AF if you are working with moving subjects or have a documentary approach, which has many advantages on the artistic side. When you're taking landscape pictures and architecture or staged portraits, focusing isn't much of an issue, but with moving people, it can be, especially in low light environments.

In a dedicated camera bag, the S2-S with a zoom is kind of bulky but manageable. On the shoot, the large Peak Design strap will take away much of the load. I've done 5 hours hikes with the SL2-S and the 24-90 with that strap. I'm not a professional hiker or highly trained sportsman. It's more than doable. You hang the camera diagonally around your shoulder and flip it to your back. The new 24-70 will shave some weight off and is probably a viable option IQ-wise. 

The CL is Leica's proposal for light travel. I have no experience with this camera but heard a lot of good things. Its colour rendition is Leica. I can't comment on lenses and the AF capabilities. But the 24-90 on the SL2-S, with its spectacular low light capabilities, has a snappy and accurate Af that's good enough for any event photography, leaving sports and birds in flight still to Canon and Sony.

[jaapv]

Birds in flight is indeed the weak point of Leica. Both the  SL and CL have not got adequate tracking focus. Manual focus has a higher success rate.
However, Sports and Wildlife are no problem for the CL. The reach of long lenses is enhanced by APS-C, the Leica offering runs to 200 mm equivalent and both Panasonic and Sigma offer excellent longer zooms that are O.IS. stabilized, relatively light and small and modestly priced. There is also the heavy, bulky and expensive 90-280 which is optically superb.

[LikameLeica]

My set- for travel:

• SL2-S - with peak design sling strap
• 24-90 is a one lens solution, no need to change it when out hiking or site seeing.
• 3 M Lenses (21/3.4, 35/1.4, and 50/1.4), provides an option to go lighter on some excursions or when out in the evening.  The 21/3.4 is an amazing landscape lens.
• 3 Batteries

[Ba Erv]

I guess I’m the odd man out about the SL2/SL2-S as a travel camera.  I think it’s perfect if you choose the appropriate lens (big & heavy 👎). The M lenses are compact and pair nicely with the SL bodies.  However, if you prefer autofocus the selection becomes much more limited.  Personally, my everyday carry is the SL2-S with a Sigma 35mm f2 Contemporary.  I was surprised at the image quality I can achieve with this combo. I think the additional features of the SL2/SL2-S overshadow the increased weight vs the M and Q series cameras. Panasonic is also giving us another option with their light weight f1.8 series of lenses.

[Rivarola]

Thanks everyone for all your answers I used to shoot with a Nikon D3 so I think I can manage the weight, I would no leave my m10 it’s just that I am getting slower focusing diopter helps for sure, now I need to decide if sl2 for more megapixels for cropping or the sl2s for low light shooting.

 

Thanks again 

[trickness]

I think everybody saying that the SL2 isn’t a good travel camera are missing the point. If getting photos is one of the primary goals of your trip, then the SL2 is a superb camera - between the EVF and the image stabilization, it is a wonderful tool for getting photos. And if the weight is such a consideration, an M camera is no lightweight  either - plus you don’t have an EVF (A good one anyway ) or image stabilization. If you’re that worried about weight, just use your smart phone!

I have an SL2 and Q2M. The Q is great for walking around, it weighs nothing, has insane image quality… but it’s a fixed 28 mm lens. If you want variability in what your travel photos look like, a fixed lens compact camera doesn’t cut it (yeah yeah yeah you can crop with the Q, but you don’t get the look of other focal lengths and you take a resolution hit).

In order to pick the right tool for the job, you need to know what the job is. If I was going somewhere that I really wanted to capture without limitations, the SL2 would be the camera that I would take, with a couple of SL primes, because the image quality They provide is unreal. And you could always throw the M adapter on the camera if you want to use a smaller M lens and still get the benefit of the EVF and the image stabilization.

Between the SL2 & SL2-S, I’d always go for the SL-2. It works quite well for low light photography and I would rather have double the resolution because I print my pictures and also because I had the SL previously and the difference in resolution is quite easy to see between the two cameras. But of course these are just my opinions, these are all just everybody’s opinions, what will work for you and make you most comfortable you won’t really know until you use the tools in the field.

Edited July 13, 2021 by trickness

[LBJ2]

35 minutes ago, Rivarola said:

Thanks everyone for all your answers I used to shoot with a Nikon D3 so I think I can manage the weight, I would no leave my m10 it’s just that I am getting slower focusing diopter helps for sure, now I need to decide if sl2 for more megapixels for cropping or the sl2s for low light shooting.

 

Thanks again 

The SL2 + M-L Adapter+ a few of your small M lenses might be a consideration for travel. The higher quality SL2 EVF might help you with better hit rates and or use zone focusing for a very nice P&S option, no focus needed. 

Otherwise SL2 + SL35/2 APO and 47.1 MP = very good crop in camera (APS mode) or post for two lenses in one approach, might be an ideal SL travel solution too. A relative small SL2 kit. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

On 7/13/2021 at 8:15 AM, jaapv said:

The SL is not really a suitable travel camera. Too bulky and too heavy. The CL is far more suitable. And the M. Have you looked into the cause of your focusing trouble? With those focal lengths there can hardly be a problem. A simple diopter could be the solution.

Rubbish! Absolute rubbish. I have travelled all over the world with cameras as big as the SL (and including the SL) and bigger. Not once has it been an issue. A SL2 with a 28 and 50mm Summicron lenses is not a big kit. It's purely a personal preference as to how much gear someone is prepared to carry when travelling.

Gordon

[panoreserve]

Billingham Hadley Small Pro (Billinghams removable insert fits in any 15-20L-Daypack) with SL2 & Apo SL 28 & Apo SL 90 (or Apo SL 50) is my ideal travel companion  (SL1 as a backup solution, staying permanently at the hotel room / vacation home): Relatively compact, portable, perfect image quality. And, due to the "cropability" of the SL2's 47MP-files (esp. in conjunction with the fantastic Apo-Summicrons), relatively versatile. Highly recommended!

Edited July 14, 2021 by panoreserve

[FrankX]

SL2 or SL2-S together with a Sigma 24 / 3.5,  Sigma 35 / 2.0 and/or the Lumix 50 / 1.8 is still a relatively light and decent travel setup... 

Edited July 14, 2021 by FrankX

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Rubbish! Absolute rubbish. I have travelled all over the world with cameras as big as the SL (and including the SL) and bigger. Not once has it been an issue. A SL2 with a 28 and 50mm Summicron lenses is not a big kit. It's purely a personal preference as to how much gear someone is prepared to carry when travelling.

Gordon

Well, I guess it depends on the definition of travel. I once travelled a month with a 645 kit including a 500 mm lens. Never again.  I need short and long lenses both. 28 and 50 will never cut it unless one limits oneself.

[Sjz]

I use the CL for travelling with the 18-56, 55-135 and the 18 for evenings.

if the purpose of the trip is photography (or photography is not going to annoy those I am with) then the SL2 with the 24-90.  The weight does not bother me, the size though can draw  attention, it’s harder to go unnoticed. 

There are trips when photography is the purpose,  in which case ‘Woohoo’ and I bring way too much and fritter time being indecisive later.

 

[hansvons]

17 hours ago, trickness said:

Between the SL2 & SL2-S, I’d always go for the SL-2. It works quite well for low light photography and I would rather have double the resolution because I print my pictures and also because I had the SL previously and the difference in resolution is quite easy to see between the two cameras. But of course these are just my opinions, these are all just everybody’s opinions, what will work for you and make you most comfortable you won’t really know until you use the tools in the field.

I see that the other way round. I'd choose the SL2-S over the SL2 any day, especially on trips. Some perspective:

• First, most of my work ends up digitally and not on prints, which never requires 8K+ resolution. 
• Secondly, in print (I done that a few times), I choose a larger format such as A1 and happily show the sensor's imperfections for authenticity. I never use any noise reduction or sharpening and don't aim for resolution per se or technical perfection. On the contrary, I always look for character, which naturally means imperfection. Coming from moving pictures, I know that the nicest noise/grain comes from the largest photo sites. I find that 6K sensors balance resolution vs noise nicely. Please note that for prints I shoot people in environments. 
• Thirdly, the SL2-S sensor is particularly sensitive. I'm pretty sure that it delivers better colours in low light environments due to its higher sensitivity. On trips, you never know where you're ending up, eg, the party at night or the mysterious shot in a dark monastery,
• Fourth, that's personal too as everything else here written; I do video quite often and use the SL2-S professionally on smaller jobs on a field trip. While the SL2 does gorgeous video, the SL2-S does it even better.

But if I were aiming for that perfect crystal sharp landscape or architectural photograph, I'd indeed chose the SL2 over the SL2-S. Horses for courses, as they say.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[FlashGordonPhotography]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

Well, I guess it depends on the definition of travel. I once travelled a month with a 645 kit including a 500 mm lens. Never again.  I need short and long lenses both. 28 and 50 will never cut it unless one limits oneself.

Bah! I rode the length of Africa on a pushbike (14,000 km on the bike) and carried two SLRs and lenses from 20mm to 400mm PLUS 180 rolls of slide film. Processed and shipped home from major centers along the way. More recently I've travelled with a Pentax 645Z in Oz and New Zealand and lenses to 400mm and a S1R and lenses to 500mm in Burma. I took an X1D and 5 lenses to Cuba plus a PenF and three Olympus lenses and a Sony kit to 600mm to Namibia. But I know people who like to carry much more and much less.

It has little to do with what *travel* is and more to do with how important gear is compared to the rest of the stuff we carry when we travel. Purely an individual choice and no choice is silly as it's up to the person who carries the gear as to how much they want to take. I know my travel limit (about 6kg of gear plus bag and tripod if planes are involved and more if by car.). So a SL2, 14-24, 24-90, 90-280 and a fast 50 is pretty normal although I usually take a mini MF kit when I travel.

The OP mentioned carrying a 28 and 50....

Gordon