A camera junkie’s existential crisis

[Alistairm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some rambling thoughts there from someone with too many camera systems.

I should say that every system I mention here is, in and of itself, a wonderful system for making outstanding photographs. But recently I’ve been pondering my own photographic journey, particularly over the last 10 years. I should also say that none of these musings are scientific or constitute any formal sort of review process, and that my acquisition and use of photographic equipment, while deeply personally satisfying, has not been logical of financially justifiable in any way.

Having been exclusively a Nikon shooter in the digital age, I kept a foot in the SLR camp for a long time because I do a great deal of bird photography. The Nikon ecosystem was terrific. The long lenses were great, the bodies almost bullet proof and the flash system just very easy to get good results with. If you’re carrying a pro-SLR with a 500 f/4 and assorted paraphernalia then the weight doesn’t worry you, so I just enjoyed the Nikon gear and results it gave me.

But about a decade ago I impulse purchased an M 240 and a Noctilux 0.95. That was the start of a very long and slippery slope. I just couldn’t believe the quality that the M lenses delivered in such a small package, especially for me, whose most used focal lengths (outside 500mm+ for birds) are 35mm and 75mm. And I loved the rangefinder experience and the ease of manual focus with M lenses. Since then, I’ve owned many M bodies and they remain my go to for travel and general people photography. And since the advent of the 50 APO and then the 35 APO I continue to be blown away by what ditching autofocus can bring in terms of both acuity and enjoyment of use.

Once the SL arrived I was straight into that system and said goodbye to Nikon completely other than for bird photography. Sure, the flash system is pretty hopeless, but the glass is terrific and I’ve been a huge fan of EVF over OVF since the SL debuted. Fast forward, and today I have an SL2, SL2-S and every SL lens except the 50 Cron and the 24-70 (which are covered by the 50 Lux and 24-90 in my line up).

As other mirrorless systems evolved I went deep into, first, the Hasselblad X1D (and later added a 907X) and then the Fuji GFX100S (and almost all of the lenses for each system). That’s another subject, but the Hasselblad gear is now sold. The body, despite lovely ergonomics, had bad weather sealing, the rubber grips smelled awful and it is generations behind every other manufacturer with no successor in sight. I genuinely feared for the future of the X1D line up, so I got out while the lenses still had good resale value. The GFX100S, on the other hand, is very reasonably priced, produces the highest quality images of any camera that I have ever used and has a bankable future with Fuji.

Last year I upgraded my birding rig to the Canon R5 and Canon 600 RF. That was the start of a realisation about how good the mirrorless offerings from the traditional big SLR manufactures might be. The real trouble started when my Canon R3 landed.  

The R3 is a big “pro SLR sized” camera. And it is amazing. Assuming that the Sony and Nikon latest offerings are roughly on par, and keeping in mind that the R3 is the “fast/sports” camera and that Canon hasn’t unleashed its flagship (R1?) yet… well, in summary we now seem to have in the mirrorless world the equivalent capability difference that you used to have between the Canon/Nikon flagship pro SLRs and the “second tier” SLR manufacturers (with Sony having ensconced itself as a top tier brand with Canon and Nikon in the meantime).

The differences in capability with these new generation cameras are vast, especially if you’re shooting wildlife, sport, moving kids or really just about anything where autofocus acquisition and tracking are important. The AF on the R3 is utterly astounding. You – literally – just look at what you want to photograph and the camera focuses on it. Instantly. I appreciate that many people couldn’t care less about this level of AF performance, and that even people more have zero interest in lugging around a camera that large. But seriously… if you have any interest at all in the development of photographic tools over the years do yourself a favour and find some time to at least muck around with these new bodies from the big players, just to entertain yourself even briefly with how ridiculous the computing power and AF is now… it’s like cheating.  

The RF glass is likewise amazing. Like the camera body, it’s also big. But unlike my experiences from a decade ago, the lenses don’t leave you wishing you were using Leica glass. I haven’t tried them all, but the 85 f1.2, 28-70 f2, 100-500 and 600 f4 are all brilliant.

And then you have the Leica M11, which having had some serious use time with now I am just enthralled with. For my use, it has all of the advantages of the M system (size, quality, ergonomics) and an incredible sensor and – finally – a brilliant accessory EVF. Throw in getting rid of the anachronistic base plate, a triple resolution sensor and USB C charging and there is no question in my mind that it’s the best M body made to date. In fact, it is so good and the EVF such a pleasure to use that it’s posed a new question for me.

What work does the SL system have to do for me anymore?

The SL lenses are outstanding, but the autofocus is significantly worse that the Canon. It’s compact compared to the Canon, but not really more so than the GFX100 and, as good as the SL lenses are, the overall output from the Fuji system is plainly higher in terms of IQ.

Indeed, the key feature of the SL bodies seems to me that they play so nicely with M glass. And, as such, the SL system is increasing becoming a system to complement the M system, rather than being my main system, which it was for many years. The appeal these days is that I can travel with the M11 and M lenses and take the SL2-S as a backup/weather sealed body, with an AF zoom lens for versatility, but use the M lenses on it where IBIS is nice to have. Other than IBIS… the M11 has become my preferred choice for every M lens that I own, even those lenses (or in those circumstances) where I prefer an EVF to a RF. And if I’m doing something where I just can’t miss the shot (eg an event), I’ve started taking the R3.

It will be interesting to see how things pan out, including because of the very clever L Mount Alliance, but I am increasingly of the view that Leica’s first mover advantage in the mirrorless market has slipped away.  Coupled with the extreme cost of the SL gear and other makers having at least partially bridged the gap with Leica glass, I think that the SL system for my use case is significantly less compelling than it was a few years ago. It can’t hold a candle to the M11 size wise and the M11 now has an excellent optional EVF. If you need AF then the R3 (and I assume other mainstream brands) eats the SL system alive; if you can cope with the bulk you’ll come home with 99% of your photos perfectly eye focussed, no matter how tricky or fast moving the subject matter. And the GFX100S has better IQ, better AF, is cheaper and is just as versatile.

This is probably a very long-winded way of stating the bleeding obvious: the medium format systems (X1D/GFX100S) have the best IQ; the Canon the best AF (but bulky); the M system remains the jewel in Leica’s crown and the best IQ in a compact package.

None of this of course deals with the intangibles… such that the SL system is wonderful to use and just nicer to touch compared to the acres of plastic in the other non-Leica setups, or preference for lens rendering (where I still prefer the M lenses to everything, which I appreciate not everyone does and that many consider the SL to be the pinnacle).

My suspicion is the M system will remain the enduring part of Leica’s legacy and also their future, but that Leica will find it increasingly harder to lure people into the SL system and away from their “SLR brand” than it did when the original SL dropped with its gorgeous EVF and a way to access the wonderful Leica lens ecosystem. The other brands have caught up and it remains to be seen if Leica can change the game again.

All of that said all said, I’ll remain invested in the SL system and await eagerly the SL3, and I do hope that they can bring some of the AF magic from the other manufacturer’s systems into the Lecia milieu.

[Advertisement]

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

[hansvons]

16 hours ago, Alistairm said:

Some rambling thoughts there from someone with too many camera systems.

15 hours ago, Alistairm said:

This is probably a very long-winded way of stating the bleeding obvious: the medium format systems (X1D/GFX100S) have the best IQ; the Canon the best AF (but bulky); the M system remains the jewel in Leica’s crown and the best IQ in a compact package.

Alistair, love your post! You are in a tremendous/difficult position of choosing between uncountable lenses and cameras (what a sandbox!).

From that perspective, of course, the SL system hasn't much to offer because it overlaps with other brands that perform better in their niche (eg Canon and birding or Fuji GFX and resolution). We are all different, with very different needs and different ideas about photography. Choices are great, they say. I disagree. I don't need choices; I need focus. 

About three years ago, my line of work shifted from TV commercials to more journalistic stuff, often bordering advertising and portraiture. I didn't need a cine camera anymore. I figured a hybrid mirrorless camera with great video capabilities would be the best bet because shooting stills were also on the menu.

I needed a camera that delivers my idea of colour, a camera that performs well in a documentary style of shooting (the 24-90 works here brilliantly), and allows me to use my preferred glass (PL lenses and vintage Leica glass) on little video shoots. 

Canon was so kind and lent me their line-up, and I did jobs with Nikon's offerings. But I ended up with the Sl2-S because it's the mirrorless camera closest to the Alexa (my preferred cine camera) in terms of colour and sturdiness.

My last camera, a Red Epic Dragon, worked well for me for 8 years (I always preferred the Arri colour, though, when I rented one). The Sl2-S should do well for at least 5 years. Do I wait for an SL3? No. Would I buy one when it's out? No. Would I get an SL4 in 4 years? Perhaps, if my line of work will remain the same.

But there's a marginal chance that I might get a Q3 for personal work. Or not, and I keep everything to the SL2-S. You know, focus.

[tom0511]

Hi there,

also SL-system user here and yes, for sports and action I also own another camera (before D500 now R5) - but I still like the SL-IQ a tad better. I also like the feel of the SL body better, and I prefer the menus, and I love to be able to use my small 21SEM on the SL.

I now just have the 2470 RF and 70200/2.8 RF for the R5, also tested the 50/1.2 (and compared it to Leica SL 50/1.4). The Canon lenses are great. For a moment I thought about giving up the SL system, but in my case I do not want to.

Color, 3d look, user interface and also build/haptics of the SL are even better for me. And S-AF works fast and reliable. I really only see the weakness for faster sports and Action.

I also really like the "relatively " compact high quality f2.0 APO Summicron. With Canon you either have to buy a big f1.2 lens or a f1.8 lens which you need to stop down to f2.8 to get good IQ.

I also hope for a SL3 which offers C-AF comparable to R5/R3/Z9. I guess we have to be very patient.

For my part I decided to have the Canon as a complimentary system, just with a few lenses, but not to replace my SL system. And maybe one day I can sell the Canon again.

But IMO Leica is the camera I want to take and hold and go out and take images. I know its strength but also its limits,

[tom0511]

One more comment:

You say MF delivers the best IQ, Canon the bst AF, M the most compact package.

Where is the place for the SL2?

Maybe that you have 95% of M IQ, still very fast AF except sports/action maybe, and can put a M lens on it an have nearly as reduced size as Leica M;

And all this in one camera

 

[LBJ2]

@Alistairm @tom0511

I share your enthusiasm for the Leica SL system and do relate to many of the positives you both wrote about owning the gorgeous SL system. A beautiful, well built camera and the SL APO primes IQ are for the most part, peerless and as one of your wrote relatively compact in their uniformed form factor. Using Leica M lenses on the SL2 is another bonus of the SL system--highly recommended. 

When I purchased the SL2 late in the sales cycle simply because I wanted to try the SL 35/2 APO lens, I was very aware not to expect too much from the DFD AF system. To my surprise, I found I really like the SL2 camera and enjoy using this camera and have since built an SL 35/50/90 APO kit. To me the current DFD AF is good enough and with some practice and experimentation I am able to realize a fairly high fast movement hit rate too even in AFC mode. Not at the level of my specialized supersonic Sony A1 but enough that I don't worry about missing action shots if needed and IF I avoid the Achilles' heal of any CDAF based AF system aka, strong back or side lighting which robs contrast in the scene leaving nothing for the CDAF to grab on to. 

I believe the is SL3 is probably already long into the product development cycle. My guess is the SL3 will come with a M11 like 60MP or more MP BSI sensor with in camera multi resolution pixel binning, a stronger battery and a more powerful processor along with a further enhanced iteration of DFD AF thanks to a stronger processor. I don't know of course, but I don't expect to see PDAF in the SL3. But then again I never expected to see a 60MP Sony BSI sensor in a Leica M camera 😉

I think the Lumix GH6 is a good indication of the DFD AF we may see in the SL3. Richard Wong has done an excellent deep dive into the DFD AF capabilities of the new GH6 even comparing side by side to the supersonic Sony A1 !  See the video time stamps for quick access to his in-depth Autofocus coverage. 

 

 

[John Smith]

22 hours ago, hansvons said:

Alistair, love your post! You are in a tremendous/difficult position of choosing between uncountable lenses and cameras (what a sandbox!).

From that perspective, of course, the SL system hasn't much to offer because it overlaps with other brands that perform better in their niche (eg Canon and birding or Fuji GFX and resolution). We are all different, with very different needs and different ideas about photography. Choices are great, they say. I disagree. I don't need choices; I need focus. 

The funny thing about cameras these days is that there is no silver bullet. One has to figure out just what compromises he's willing to accept and then, as @hansvons says, focus. 

[LBJ2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/26/2022 at 7:10 PM, Alistairm said:

My suspicion is the M system will remain the enduring part of Leica’s legacy and also their future, but that Leica will find it increasingly harder to lure people into the SL system and away from their “SLR brand” than it did when the original SL dropped with its gorgeous EVF and a way to access the wonderful Leica lens ecosystem. The other brands have caught up and it remains to be seen if Leica can change the game again.

All of that said all said, I’ll remain invested in the SL system and await eagerly the SL3, and I do hope that they can bring some of the AF magic from the other manufacturer’s systems into the Lecia milieu.

I've given your thoughtful post...a lot of thought. 

FWIW as a long time and current Sony shooter, the Leica SL 35/2 APO lured me into the Leica SL system mid 2021. As I commented already, my surprise was just how capable I found the SL2 compared to some of the complaints on the forum although I did have my doubts about the SL2's size and heft when I first started to use the SL2. That concern quickly dissipated once I became used to the SL2 size and weight and found the SL2 actually fits my tall hand more comfortably than the Sony A1. 

I do agree that if the fastest and most responsive AF technology is a priority want or need then yes the Sony A1, Canon R5, Nikon Z9 are a better solution particularly if that want/need includes one single camera to do it all as I feel the A1 and R5 can mostly certainly be that "one camera to do it all" solution w/ caveats. But from the outside looking in, I do however wonder if the Leica SL system is really competing with the high volume Sony, Canon, Nikon FF market and if so by how much. I mean I don't think it's any secret the Leica price structure isn't even a consideration for the vast majority that buy into the big three systems.

Surely, Leica would love to have a large migration from the big three FF mirrorless market, but I don't think that's their business plan or expectation. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by LBJ2

[Luke_Miller]

I love my Ms and they are my primary bodies for my personal shooting. I just purchased an SL with the 24-90 lens as a host for my M glass and to see if it would work for events where I wanted auto-focus.  The weight of the SL and 24-90 combination was everything I had been led to expect from posts here.  It is a handful and I was not sure I would enjoy shooting with it over an extended shoot. Until ... I picked up my prime event tool, the Nikon D850 and 24-70 f2.8, and could tell no difference between them in weight. Possibly the smaller size and denseness of the SL makes it initially seem heavier than the larger D850.  Obviously, if your weight reference is an M the difference is enormous, but compared to a pro DSLR, not so much.

[Stuart Richardson]

The interesting part of this discussion for me is in how far removed it seems to be from photography itself. I am not trying to troll you, as I definitely understand the appeal of having a lot of cameras, as I do myself. But what seems to be missing here is a concerted idea of what you expect out of a given system. In other words, what is the purpose of this gear? My best examples come from film, as it has been more static. But one example I would give would be my view camera. I bought an Ebony SV45Ti in 2005, and I am still using that today without even a casual thought about whether I would switch. It just does what I want it to do. The Mamiya 7II is the same. There simply is no point looking at anything else for me.

Increasingly digital is arriving at this point. The cameras keep evolving, but for most kinds of photography, they have reached a point where anything more is perhaps nice to have, but not necessary. I was a long S system shooter, and I shot with the S006 for six years. There was nothing out there that seemed to make sense for me to leave that system for. The GFX felt worse in use and did not have appreciably better image quality. I preferred the color out of the Leica, as well as the character of the lenses. I traded in the S006 for the S3, which I actually did not like as much as either the S006 or the SL2 (which I had bought used thinking the S3 would be years away for me). What I found in the SL2 was that it had the feel that I loved in a Leica SLR/Mirrorless camera, the lens quality was insane, and it was very very versatile. I could use it in the studio for artwork reproduction, put an M lens on it and use it for a more casual walk in the woods, or put an S lens on it for a certain look or a portrait session. The pixel level quality is so high that with 47mp, I really do not feel the need for more than that. It looked better to me than the S3 at 64mp, both in terms of rendering and acuity. I have shown 100x150cm prints in the National Museum here in Iceland taken with the S006, and they look stunning. Given that the SL2 is sharper than even that, at what point does the extra resolution become a nice, but rare advantage? For me it is mostly about camera scanning or extreme cropping. More importantly, I like the way that the SL2 handles. I can trust it to be simple and effective in use, to always nail focus on what I point it at (recognizing that I don't do birds or sports etc), and I can use it natively with nearly all my lenses. In a similar way to the S, the Mamiya or the Ebony, it just disappears in my hands and lets me worry about photographing. It does what I need, so I don't need to think much or at all about what Fuji, Sony or Nikon are doing.

I guess my point or advice would be to reflect on what it is all in service of. You seem to have the resources to have any camera you want, so what one do you like best? I would try to stick with that one for awhile and see if it settles some of the restlessness.

Edited March 28, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[mkur]

Am 27.3.2022 um 00:10 schrieb Alistairm:

But about a decade ago I impulse purchased an M 240 and a Noctilux 0.95. That was the start of a very long and slippery slope.

Impulse buys of Nociluxes. You can only find it in this forum 🙂 As someone with way too many cameras I think I understand you.