Have an SL2-S, but I think I want an SL2. Do I?

[jackbaty]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2021 has been a year of juggling cameras for me. Another year of it, if I'm being honest. I've bought and sold a Q2M and a Q2. I bought an M10-R and even that is, surprisingly, currently for sale. Through it all, I've hung on to my SL2-S. It doesn't sing to me the way an M does, but it's just so much more versatile.

After having the higher-megapixel Q2 and M10-R, I miss it in the SL2-S, so I'm thinking of replacing it with an SL2.

I originally chose the SL2-S over the SL2 for several reasons. First, it was cheaper :). Second, it seemed a lot cleaner at higher ISOs. Third, at the time, I was against anything more than 24 megapixels and thought it was wasteful and unnecessary. And third, it handled video very well (which was one of its intended uses).

What's actually happened, though, is that I almost never shoot video. And I grew to love the flexibility of having all those pixels to work with. (I've outgrown my aversion to cropping). Finally, I've been using Topaz DeNoise on the M10-R files and have been pleasantly surprised at how well it works. This makes me less concerned about shooting with higher ISOs.

So, after all this, I think I want an SL2. For those who know both, what might I be missing by "upgrading" to the SL2? Color? Speed? Look? I'm using it with an APO Summicron SL and also the Summilux-M 35 FLE. Thinking about the 24-90 at some point.

Thanks for any insight.

Jack

Edited December 27, 2021 by jackbaty

[LocalHero1953]

I went the other way, from SL2 to SL2S, for many of the reasons you list. I still prefer not to crop - certainly not enough to push me to more pixels.
But the biggest difference between the two that makes me satisfied with the SL2S is the low light/high ISO performance: not the noise characteristics, but the colours that, to my eye, remain richer and more faithful as the light diminishes compared to the SL2. 
If the SL2S had not appeared though, I have no doubt I would have remained very happy with the SL2.

[Advertisement]

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

[jackbaty]

1 minute ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I went the other way, from SL2 to SL2S, for many of the reasons you list. I still prefer not to crop - certainly not enough to push me to more pixels.
But the biggest difference between the two that makes me satisfied with the SL2S is the low light/high ISO performance: not the noise characteristics, but the colours that, to my eye, remain richer and more faithful as the light diminishes compared to the SL2. 
If the SL2S had not appeared though, I have no doubt I would have remained very happy with the SL2.

I do love the colors from the SL2-S, so one of my concerns is that the SL2 might be different, not in a good way. Your comment about color and high-ISOs makes sense, so thanks.

Another thing that occurs to me is that I often convert to B&W (usually with SilverEfex). Curious about how the two cameras might handle that differentlly.

[LocalHero1953]

I haven't done much B&W conversion, so can't advise on that.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The SL2 is very close to the Q2 in colour and noise. So you already know what it will be like.

Gordon

[Stef63]

To me you focus to much on the camera body.  Why not stay with the body you have and add a few more lenses?  To me a lens makes a much bigger impact on the creativity of photography than a different digital sensor or features a camera body has or does not have.

 

[jackbaty]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

The SL2 is very close to the Q2 in colour and noise. So you already know what it will be like.

Gordon

Thanks. In that case it'll be fine

[jackbaty]

14 minutes ago, Stef63 said:

To me you focus to much on the camera body.  Why not stay with the body you have and add a few more lenses?  To me a lens makes a much bigger impact on the creativity of photography than a different digital sensor or features a camera body has or does not have.

 

Yes, I appreciate what you're saying, lenses are important. But for my purposes here, lenses aren't the deciding factor. And the difference in price between them is about 1/4 the cost of a new lens :). It's good to be reminded, though. I have no qualms with the current camera, to be sure.

[Lins-Barroso]

SL2 is for sure a better camera for me.

The colors & contrast have more character and 50MP are the new 24MP.

The MP from an M8 were more than enough at that time, but the times and the technology are running...

The M Line with just 24MP was discontinued and the M11 with more than 50 MP is on the corner.

Edited December 27, 2021 by Lins-Barroso

[bandrews]

I'd say you definitely WANT and SL2 but that isn't the same as needing one. Sounds like you have quite a high turnaround of cameras. Are you sure you aren't just trying to find the perfect camera that might not exist? Can you see any potential drawbacks of the SL2 that might have you looking elsewhere once the initial dopamine new camera buzz wears off?

I settled for the SL2S for it's low light performance over the SL2 and the size of the files. I use mine almost entirely for photographing birds (paired with the Sigma 100-400mm) and sometimes need to bump up ISO to get a fast enough shutter speed. Because I'm not taking hundreds of photos at a time I mostly edit photos using Lightroom on my iPad or iPhone out in the field via the Fotos app. The time taken to transfer 50MP files and the space they take up is more of a con to me than the pro of being able to crop.

As for colours, I spent a while deliberating and all the comparisons I saw online, I preferred the SL2S files.

[jaapv]

I am sure that it is not that difficult to get the colours between the cameras virtually identical in postprocessing. I cannot imagine that Leica specified such a large difference in Bayer filters to make the match difficult. Any difference is  more than likely caused by the profiles in Lightroom/ACR. Make a camera  profile for each camera  under identical light and the colour difference disappears.

[jackbaty]

27 minutes ago, bandrews said:

I'd say you definitely WANT and SL2 but that isn't the same as needing one. Sounds like you have quite a high turnaround of cameras. Are you sure you aren't just trying to find the perfect camera that might not exist? Can you see any potential drawbacks of the SL2 that might have you looking elsewhere once the initial dopamine new camera buzz wears off?

I definitely turn around cameras often. I love trying new cameras and setups. The SL2-S has been great. All things being equal, I am learning that I like the flexibility of higher-resolution sensors. It's the "equal" part I'm trying to weigh.

[jackbaty]

9 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I am sure that it is not that difficult to get the colours between the cameras virtually identical in postprocessing. I cannot imagine that Leica specified such a large difference in Bayer filters to make the match difficult. Any difference is  more than likely caused by the profiles in Lightroom/ACR. Make a camera  profile for each camera  under identical light and the colour difference disappears.

I'm honestly not terribly concerned about color, and can't imagine the differences would be meaningful, but thought it worth mentioning. I listed it as a potential example of where the cameras might differ.  Good advice about color profiles, thanks.

[jackbaty]

I'm going to hold off on moving to the SL2 for a bit. I honestly have no complaints with the SL2-S, so the upgrade is probably not worth the trouble right now. Thank you all for the insight and advice.

[Dr. G]

I went from the SL2 to the SL2-S.  Low light performance and color science were important to me and, having had the original SL, I found the SL2-S colors to be more to my liking.  I had a Q2 and loved the performance in good light, but like the SL2, I found that the images got noisy at ISOs that I was regularly using in low light.  
 

FWIW, monochrome conversion with the SL2 was a strong point in good light.  The SL2 sensor’s resolution and contrast/microcontrast allowed me to get the high contrast, detailed black and white images I like.  That being said, I now have the Q2 monochrome (I tended to convert anything under 35mm to black and white) and would buy a SL2 monochrome if it is released after understanding the advantages of having a true monochrome sensor.  

[frame-it]

20 hours ago, jackbaty said:

2021 has been a year of juggling cameras for me. Another year of it, if I'm being honest. I've bought and sold a Q2M and a Q2. I bought an M10-R and even that is, surprisingly, currently for sale. Through it all, I've hung on to my SL2-S. It doesn't sing to me the way an M does, but it's just so much more versatile.

After having the higher-megapixel Q2 and M10-R, I miss it in the SL2-S, so I'm thinking of replacing it with an SL2.

 

 

[tom0511]

I also use both. I use the sl2s if i need more than iso 3200, for low light situations. For anything else i use the sl2. The sl2s has a  slightls more orange tint in skin, both are great, but I would even slightly prefer the sl2 color. The noise of sl2 up to 6400 is fine. The sl2s gives youl a little more flexibilty in available light situations. I now use even 12500 with it.

If I could have just one of the 2 I would go for the sl2, except I was shooting a lot in low light

 

do you miss to have more pixels? If not, why just use your sl2s? If yes, get a sl2

Edited December 31, 2021 by tom0511

[RBB]

8 hours ago, tom0511 said:

I also use both. I use the sl2s if i need more than iso 3200, for low light situations. For anything else i use the sl2

So do I, prefer the SL2 when doing landscape (mostly on tripod), I take the SL2-s when I need the high ISO.