Trading my Q2 for the SL2-S

[jimleicam3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I owned an SL when it first came out.  Only used the M lenses because I was concerned about the size and weight.  Traded it in for the Q2.  I like the Q2, but just not as jazzed as I could be with it.  Not a big fan of the auto focus, and the metering isn't to my liking.  Still use my M10 with a 21 mm, 35 mm and 50 mm.  I never use video, but I like the idea of the ISO range on the SL2-s vs the SL2.  So I am thinking of trading my Q2 for a SL2-S.  Am I crazy?

have others dropped the Q2 for an SL2 or SL2-S?

Thanks

[Advertisement]

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

[Robert E]

Short answer, Yes, you are crazy. I think you will come to regret that exchange. 

The Q2 is an amazing camera and has been stated so, over and over again.  I've read most all the posts on here about problems and idiosyncrasies of  the SL2-s since it came out, which forms my negative opinion of it.

Just my 2 cents worth, I'm sure you'll get some other opinions.

 

[hansvons]

I think they complement each other weil. Thinking of getting the Q2. SL2-S has quite a footprint.

[nicci78]

SL2-S is too big.
Anyway it has better sensor, way better high ISO, more reliable & faster AF, better EVF, bigger screen and a really useful IBIS (Q2 OIS is an embarrassing joke). 
 

However I will never trade Q2 for SL2-S. Just because of huge size and heavy weight. 

[matted]

I also think they complement each other extremely well and serve different purposes. I have had a Q2 for 2 years and an SL2s for about a month. I wouldn’t even think of selling the Q2 even though I am using my Ms and SL2s a lot more these days. 
 

Even with a small M lens the SL2s is bigger due to the viewfinder bump and therefore doesn’t fit in the same bags. All native Leica L glass is monstrous compared to the Q2 lens although there are some smaller alternatives from Panasonic and Sigma. 
 

The Q2 is an entire camera system in a medium (not quite “compact” or “pocketable”) sized body with possibly the best UX of any camera I have ever used. Fast, intuitive, tactile controls for shutter speed, aperture, macro mode, and switching between MF/AF, and a serviceable video capability. The image quality ranges from quite good to stunning depending on light levels and how important your corner sharpness is, and the AF is fast and accurate for all “AFs” situations. I use it all the time to photograph my kids, which I was not able to do with previous mirrorless bodies such as the Fuji X100s and XT-1. 
 

In my time with the SL2s I don’t find the AF is any faster or more accurate than Q2 for static subjects, but the tracking and face detection is appreciably better. Low light capability is considerably better for sure, as are the video capabilities. It changes lenses quite a bit better than the Q2 as well . 

 

I think the decision ultimately would come down to which lenses you would like to use with the SL2s as that has a huge impact on IQ, handling, size, etc. Gluing an SL APO 28 or 35 on the SL2s would “beat” the Q2 in most categories aside from size, weight, and MP, but would be a vastly different user experience. Using the SL2 with M glass is a similar user experience, minus AF of course.

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by matted

[acg69]

I am also contemplating the same switch. I am intrigued by the low light capability / IBIS of the SL2-S not to mention the smaller files and the 35 APO I would be getting if I decided to make the switch. Not that thrilled about the size / weight compared to the Q2. My main gripe with the Q2 is that I would like a native 35 mm lens on it and if that is not possible, at the very least a better digital zoom implementation, i.e. "filling" the screen with the zoomed in image instead of the anachronistic frame lines. I know I can crop and have an f/2 35mm, but it just doesn't "feel" the same. On the other hand, I love the macro capability (including the ELPRO52 I am using) and the incredible UI, i.e. the manual knobs with the A on them; as easy as can be. The SL2-S feels more "standard" in the sense that it works like most other digicams. Will not make use of its video capabilities either. The more I think about it, the more I feel that it is just GAS with the SL2-S...

[beewee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’ve had the SL2-S for almost a year now and still have an M10 with a fairly full complement of M and SL glass, and the odd R lens, but no Q2.

The SL2-S is a great camera and my primary camera that I use these days and for me, the biggest reasons are:

• Very good EVF, good enough to not make me wish I had an OVF
• Amazing dynamic range at low ISO
• Amazing high ISO performance
• Access to amazing APO SL lenses, and good quality SL zooms

Personally, if I were to shoot M lenses and already have an M10, I would use the M10. You’ll get better image quality, especially on the wide angle lenses with similarly good dynamic range at low ISO with a more compact and lighter weight setup.

Also, note that I say “good quality” SL zooms. The SL zooms perform very well but on the wide end, I wouldn’t say the 16-35 SL is 2x better than something like a Sony 16-35 GM lens. It’s better but it’s marginally better, not better by the amount they differ in their prices! So it depends on what you need and what you want to prioritize.

I’m not a fan of most sony alpha cameras but if I were to only shoot zooms, I’d be tempted to go with a Sony Alpha 1 setup which has an excellent EVF, amazing AF, reasonably sensible UI, and a nice range of GM zooms that perform about 95-100% as good as the Leica equivalent and lenses are less than half the price of the Leica equivalent.

For me, the reason to get an SL body is really for the APO SL lenses as they have a truly unique look that I really like and the microcontrast is simply stunning. There’s simply nothing on the market, short of going medium format, that provide the level of microcontrast available on the APO SL and on those bodies, you’ll need to live with slower AF, smaller apertures, shallower DoF, etc…

Edited April 28, 2022 by beewee

[Olaf_ZG]

I sold the Q and got the SL. Not that the Q wasn’t good, but the 28mm wasn’t my thing…

[Stuart Richardson]

It does not seem like a move that would make you that happy. You had the SL before and found it too big and heavy...the SL2S will be the same. The high ISO really has to be evaluated based on print size. The Q2 may look noisier at 100%, but it also has 47mp instead of 24mp, when the sizes are equalized, the noise level is closer than it would appear if you just look at both at 100%. From what I have heard, the SL2S is still better, but it is something you might compare, because you might find that at the size you print, the Q2 noise is already pretty low. I would say that if you are looking to go to an SL camera, the SL2 is the more natural fit given that it has the same sensor.

It seems to me that the camera you are looking for does not exist in the Leica ecosystem right now. You might consider waiting for the Q3, which will most likely be out in a year or two.

Edited April 28, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[nicci78]

 What makes Q and Q2 special is the Summilux-Q 28mm f/1.7 part. Not the camera other half. 

[Stuart Richardson]

I disagree…for me the lens is good but not amazing (it is not sharp in the field compared to the apo summicrons, nor does it have the same snap somehow), but it puts the fantastic sensor from the SL2 in a compact package. I bought the Q2 primarily for the sensor…never had an interest in the Q. I know people seem to like the SL2S, but 24mp is a big step down for my work, which often features large prints and/or large crops. I also much prefer the SL2 sensor even to the one I had in the S3. The magic of the Q2 is that it puts the fantastic color and clean, sharp detail of that sensor in a more manageable body. I only wish that it just had an L mount, rather than a fixed lens. 

Edited April 28, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[hansvons]

When we are already at it, comparing the Q2 to the SL2-S: the SL2-S is a professional mirrorless camera with all the benefits of a modern 24MP sensor (sensitivity and video). But the Q2 is a Leica-esk interpretation of a full-frame point-to-shoot camera. Very different, hardly comparable. That's why I believe they, at best, complement each other. That said, the SL2-S is a formidable hybrid camera with a very robust body and second-to-none colour (that's personal, though). The two are colour-wise very close but otherwise totally different in almost every aspect. If one wants to swap the Q2 for the SL2-S, chances are high that the specification book wasn't filled in meaningfully in the first place or, at some point, the requirements changed. 

But I totally get it if one contemplates the two cameras, their strengths and weaknesses. That's why I still think that I should be getting a Q2 for light travels that don't require a full-blown camera plus lenses.

[trickness]

8 hours ago, Robert E said:

I've read most all the posts on here about problems and idiosyncrasies of  the SL2-s since it came out, which forms my negative opinion of it.

 

 

Curious, what problems and idiosyncrasies are you referring to? 

[LocalHero1953]

I’ve had the SL2-S since launch and it’s never given me any problems, photo or video. It’s just a workhorse, a Swiss Army knife, a jack of all trades that just gets things done. Too heavy for casual use though, which is why I am now thinking of getting a Q2 as well (to replace a CL!)

Edited April 28, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[Pelu2010]

Hey , 

 

i work with the Sl2s with longer lenses for portraits. 
And the q2 is the second unit. 
and if I need a wideangle, then the q2 turns into the first unit. 
 

and the q2 is always with me. Which is just exceptional. 
 

i would say that I work 2/3 with the q2 and 1/2 with the Sl2s. 
 

but if I would have to trade in the Sl2s for the q2 , then I would test this for a while. 
 

kind regards peter 

[T25UFO]

Went the opposite direction - traded the SL2 for Q2.  I also prefer 35mm to 28mm but can use the Q2 as a 35mm with the crop lines in the viewfinder.  Still produces 30mp files, which is better than original Q at 28mm.  I have M10R with 35mm APO as an option.  My preferred lens for portraits is the reissued f1.2 50mm Noctilux on the M10R.  A longer lens (75mm or 90mm) with auto focus would be nice, but not at the expense of size and weight.

[Photoworks]

The Q2 is probably been updated next year, considering that 3 special edition are already out. Following the trends of the M cameras.

I got the Q2 because I didn't have a 28mm option for SL2 at the time.

The Q2 camera is incredible quality, great lens, size, and color.
in lens shutter can sync flash at higher speeds.

I feel the lens look is more a 24mm with lots of digital image correction.
The q2 sensor does suffer from lines in the shadows when underexposing to much.
Camera is Slow in buffer.  for professional work not ideal .

 

The SL camera can keep up with the most demanding shoots. the only compromise is AF.
 

I have sold my Q2. Got a 28mm. and M11

Conclusion for me: Q2 is a great 2nd camera for professionals.
If you just want just a camera for personal and travel, the Q2 camera can be perfect for you.

 

[nicci78]

15 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I disagree…for me the lens is good but not amazing (it is not sharp in the field compared to the apo summicrons, nor does it have the same snap somehow), but it puts the fantastic sensor from the SL2 in a compact package. I bought the Q2 primarily for the sensor…never had an interest in the Q. I know people seem to like the SL2S, but 24mp is a big step down for my work, which often features large prints and/or large crops. I also much prefer the SL2 sensor even to the one I had in the S3. The magic of the Q2 is that it puts the fantastic color and clean, sharp detail of that sensor in a more manageable body. I only wish that it just had an L mount, rather than a fixed lens. 

I really hate SL2/Q2/S1R sensor. 
High ISO noise is ugly as hell. 
I would trade up my Q2 for a Q2-S in a heartbeat. 
SL2-S sensor is amazing. SL2’s is so-so. 

Don’t care at all about 47MP it is 23MP superfluous weight. 
Even for print, the difference is not that obvious. 
Sharp lens comes first and high MP counts comes later. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Alexander-HH]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Pelu2010:

i would say that I work 2/3 with the q2 and 1/2 with the Sl2s. 

Cool - so you are working at almost 117% capacity 🤠

Just kidding of course 😁 Alexander

[Pelu2010]

34 minutes ago, Alexander-HH said:

Cool - so you are working at almost 117% capacity 🤠

Just kidding of course 😁 Alexander

Hey , 

 

i work with the Sl2s with longer lenses for portraits. 
And the q2 is the second unit. 
and if I need a wideangle, then the q2 turns into the first unit. 
 

and the q2 is always with me. Which is just exceptional. 
 

i would say that I work 2/3 with the q2 and 1/2 with the Sl2s. 
 

but if I would have to trade in the Sl2s for the q2 , then I would test this for a while. 
 

kind regards peter 

 

grrr 1/3 …. But feels like 130% 

so smooth and easy