Core of the SL

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After reading the same topic on the M system, I started thinking about my SL and what the system stands for.

I have the SL(601) and one SL lens, the fabulous 24-90 zoom.  I really bought it to use with my M lenses.  But the SL glass was so appealing, I soon added to it - 90-280, 16-35, 50 Summilux, 75 Summicron.  My approach was back button AF, then manual adjust.  I lugged the camera on tramps into the Alps, and the camera worked perfectly.  What wasn’t so good, and why did I sell it down?  Too much overlap with the M system, which I preferred.

So, what would draw me back?

• a body size and shape best suited to comfortable holding - that doesn’t mean small, crowded with buttons, or slippery like a bar of soap when wet.  Just comfortable and as big as it needs to be
• AF which is actually class leading.  Leica has historically gone with proven technology, but other manufacturers (Canon) have produced blazingly fast and apparently accurate AF.  No reason Leica can’t do likewise
• manual focus which actually works - the fly by wire focusing is very unsatisfying when compared to the lovely mechanics of the M lenses
• the best available sensor, fully compatible with M lenses and with better dynamic range (don’t care about MP)
• video which really does work (the SL2-S achieves this?)
• Leica’s stripped-down-to-the-necessary approach to haptics, menus and controls
• the best EVF available
• better batteries with in camera USB charging
• faster and more stable WiFi
• internal backup storage
• weathersealing and a robust body
• smaller lens options.  It’s great that the current lenses are designed to be the best they can be, but smaller, good and cheaper lenses would make the system more accessible

To be honest, I don’t miss much about my SL - I don’t do video and I have only one AF lens.  But I do think, with so much negativity about the L system,* largely driven by rage over the discontinuance of the APS-C cameras, we lose sight of what a great system the SL system really is.

Cheers
John

*Some will recall a highly respected and entertaining member here who was so disappointed by the release of the SL(601), and what it meant for the future of Leica, that he sold out his entire M system and went, I think, to Hasselblad.

[frame-it]

22 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Leica’s stripped-down-to-the-necessary approach to haptics, menus and controls

i still prefer the SL601's 4 unmarked dual function [long press or click]  buttons

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

 

[Olaf_ZG]

To me, but I am only a novice Leica user, the SL should be the perfect add on to the M. 
 

- the M a simple basic camera (no video, no ibis etc, no evf)

- SL should have this and be able to make use of M lenses

 

 

[LocalHero1953]

9 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

 I lugged the camera on tramps into the Alps

If I had bought the SL for this usage I would have been as disappointed as you, and would have sold immediately. Soon after buying the SL I carried it around for a day on holiday in Bologna. I immediately relegated it to the 'Forgetit' class of travel cameras. That is why Leica makes the M, Q and (till recently) CL and T. The SL is not and never will be a camera suited to general carry-around use, and this is certainly not the 'core of the SL', as should be obvious before buying - IMO, of course!

IMO the SL is a workhorse for specific tasks and occasions. When I'm using it I don't notice the size and weight. When I am carrying it around waiting for a photo to show up, it is too big and heavy. 

 

Edit. I am a geologist, not a camera designer, so I'm not going to pretend I know why the SL and lenses are the size they are or why they can't be smaller. However, I would not want to achieve a smaller size and weight if it meant sacrificing vital characteristics:

• Heat management, which permits low sensor noise and good video performance (the small Sigma fp needs a heat sink - and has no VF or mechanical shutter).
• Lens optical performance.
• EVF size and quality (EVF size and response is more important than resolution IMO).
• Battery life.

Edited June 26, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[chris_tribble]

Hmmm.  Lots of things I agree with here - but I also have some questions. My current feeling is that the Q2 is one of the best carry around cameras I've ever owned, and because of the way it combines 28mm with near macro, it covers almost everything I need for general purpose work.  The M? I've kept my M10-R and the trinity of 28/35/50, but I use them less than I used to - though I know there will be projects which will bring me back to them.  And the SL - which is the point of this post? I have two SL2 bodies, 24-90 and 90-280 zooms and the 35 and 75 APO primes.  I initially thought I'd use M lenses on the SL - but in the end I find that I don't.  They just seem a bit beside the point when the 24-90 is so good.  What's happened is similar to what happened when I ran M's alongside a Canon system. They were just two different tool kits that got used for different jobs.  However - I don't think I would ever have loved the Canon L 24-70 2.8 lenses (I've not tried their R equivalents) as much as I do the L 24-90 - and I would never have trekked with a 5D series body and L lenses.  I have and do, however, use the SL2 with 24-90 as an all day lens for nature or urban work, and don't find it too much of a challenge when carried across the body.  And I regularly use the pair of SL2s with zooms or primes for events and performance work and they've been rock solid and have given results that have pleased me and pleased clients.

We all make choices.  I'm certain that I could deliver professional results with any of the modern systems that are out there.  Loads of other people do.  A professional Canon R system would cost me around £14K (Eos 5R + L series 24-70 / 70-200 / 85) - but this would be inferior in terms of reach compared with the Leica equivalents (24-90 / 90-280 is SO useful), and I'm aware that if push came to shove I could live without the SL primes - lovely as they are.  So I could have an SL2 based system for £15.5K which would, I would argue, out perform optically other competitive systems.

Reliability - apart from an annoyance with the body covering on the SL2 and a damaged eye-cup the SL2 has been rock solid from new.  I love the menu, I love the handling and for my needs it does the job.  I don't do sports, I don't do wildlife to a great extent.  I'm happy. And I think that's the core of the SL system.  It makes me happy 🙂

[Chris W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I picked up an SL this week, but haven't used it yet.

I don't own nor can afford Leica L mount lenses. I have M lenses, also Sigma L mount. Both are much smaller than the Leica versions. That has got to add to the weight and bulk of carrying the SL? I would be happy to own the Leica L out 35 or 50, but then they are still quite large and heavy. The 24-90 is humungous.

It's odd to me that someone who states they 'don't do video' adds that proper video in the SL would draw him back. I do video all the time, but the (now affordable) Sigma FP is way better for video than anything Leica has ever sold. So if I were Leica I would drop video altogether.

[Stuart Richardson]

I was also considering posting a post about the positives of the SL, because it seems like this section of the forum is largely inhabited by people having problems or complaining about different issues. I am not downplaying their concerns. If they have problems, I believe them. But I also believe that there are many many people for whom the SL is a fantastic system.

So for me? I work as a professional photographer, but my needs are different then what a lot of people seem to think of as what professional photography is. I do not photograph weddings (though I have), I do not photograph events (though I have), I do not photograph sports (I have not), I don't photograph children and pets or graduation portraits etc etc. My use is primarily as an artist, and as a technician working for artists. So as an example of some of the jobs I have done using the SL: photographed drawings and artworks for museum collections and use as print runs, recorded video for performance art pieces, photographed an art book cover to cover for a 1:1 facsimile edition for a major publisher, scanned documents and vintage photographs for several retrospective exhibitions at national museums, and photographed tiny postage stamp sized objects to be enlarged to the scale of a wall for an exhibit. Meanwhile, with the same camera, I have photographed in driving rain and snow in the near arctic and routinely been able to make tack sharp edge to edge photos, even wide open out the window of a helicopter (in the case of the recent eruption here) I have never had a single error from the body or any lenses (unlike with my M, R or S cameras).

For me the SL means: Best in class handling. Best in class lenses. Best in class viewfinder. Best in class color. Best in class flexibility (I can use M, S and view camera lenses on it).

Notice what is conspicuously absent from my use: AFc. Frankly I think Leica might as well just remove it from the cameras, because in doing so people who need it might realize they cannot get it to work properly, and they would choose a system that would work better for them, like one from Canon or Sony.

[oldwino]

I still shoot a lot of film, and my preferred film cameras are my Leica IIIa, for its very compact size and compact lenses, and a Nikon FM3a, used mostly for longer lenses (55-135) and I sometimes enjoy the SLR experience. I have a lot of really nice AI-S glass. 

But sometimes I just want to shoot digitally, or digital makes the most sense for whatever project I have in mind. I’ve just picked up a nice used SL (very late to the party…), and I am delighted at how much the shooting experience mimics my Nikon. It is so easy to use with all my manual focus lenses (I’ve tried manual focus with Nikon Z, Canon R, Lumix S, and the SL hands down has the best viewfinder for manual focusing). My 85/1.4 ais is so nice on the SL. My old 55/1.2 just sings on digital. And, all my LTM and M lenses work so well. 

Anyway, that’s how I see the SL - a direct continuation of my film SLR. Yes, I know it does autofocus, too, but so far I don’t have the need for it. And I’m sure the SL lenses are amazing, but they are so much bigger and heavier than even a Nikkor on an adaptor. And expensive. 

There is still nothing like the Barnack cameras in the digital realm, and probably never will be. The closest I’ve found are the Ricoh GR3 cameras - compact, simple to use and with great image quality, which was what the little Leica cameras was all about back in the old days…

[albireo_double]

On 6/26/2022 at 3:12 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

Notice what is conspicuously absent from my use: AFc. Frankly I think Leica might as well just remove it from the cameras, because in doing so people who need it might realize they cannot get it to work properly, and they would choose a system that would work better for them, like one from Canon or Sony.

I find that after upgrading to FW 4.1, the combination of iAF and body/face/eye AF actually tracks people very well in what I shoot, i.e. mostly models posing and portraits. Even when the model changes poses quite significantly between shots, and I shoot at F2.0 with the Apo Summicron-SL 75, I get close to a 100% perfectly focused images. It may not be fast enough for sports or birds in flight (I don't know, do not shoot these subjects), but for my use, the AF is now finally perfectly usable and, for the first time, allows me to concentrate on the model's expression and overall composition, instead of fumbling with the focusing point. And when I want to go for the "artsy look", the class-leading EVF allows me to focus accurately with the Noctilux F0.95 wide open - many of the best shots from my workshop trip to Cappadocia Turkey earlier this week were taken with this combo. As a final observation, several of the Nikon-wielding participants of the same workshop repeatedly commented about the colours coming from my SL2, just looking at the back display. So, I am with you on this...I have tried many different cameras but the SL2 is the one I rely on to bring the pictures in any situation where I don't have full control of the set, lighting etc. (when I do have that control, then it is over to Phase One, usually)

Edited July 2, 2022 by albireo_double

[trickness]

We like what we like, and that always brings an element of the irrational into it.

But for me, I can’t see paying the price premium that an M carries given its vastly inferior technical features to the SL series. Really, the only thing the M has going for it is the form factor, and that includes the new 11 with all of its supposed upgrades that in reality are of questionable value (this triple resolution thing? 60 megapixels and no IBIS?) The main practical improvement in the 11 seems to be the electronic shutter, something lots of people seem to be complaining about)

With the SL2, the ability to see the actual image that I am composing in the moment that is very close to what the captured file (with the EVF) will be is indispensable to me. Personally I think this is of much greater value than the ability to see outside rangefinder frame lines, and especially when you’re shooting anything wider than 35 or longer like 75 and up on an M body. I think the M is really a camera that works best with a 35 or a 50, where the SL excels at any focal length. 

SL2 tech? IBIS, built in diopter, weather sealing, versatility in lens adaptation….I take my SL2 out in the streets of New York and I will shoot for five or six hours at a time, with the SL primes, or M glass. I think everybody that complains about how heavy the camera is should maybe do some push-ups or eat their Wheaties 🤣.

I absolutely get the less is more ethos of the M cameras. But there are so many posts about how heavy the SL is and how much of an impedance it is to taking photographs….I could see taking an M out just because I wanted to try something different, but when I get into anything approaching a professional situation with my camera, it’s the SL every time.

Again we like what we like. But carrying a camera that’s a little bit heavier is an OK trade-off for me given the clear technical superiority of the platform, and every time I see a post slagging the SL2 for being too heavy or too big and how the M is so much better because it is small, I think it’s important to bring up the counterpoints.

 

 

 

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I like the M series, but you can make the same weight and size argument about it...I still have my film m's, but sold my M10 because I just was not using it enough anymore to justify it. I mostly wound up using it as a digital camera to bring along on trips or when I was primarily shooting film. But in that role I found that a camera like the Ricoh GRIIIx did a better job, as it is so small and light as to be inconsequential to bring along, as well as being quicker in most situations...I never really got on too well with the sensor in the M10 either, so I did not love the color or look of the results compared to the M9. The camera ergonomics were much improved, however.

In general, I think people gravitate towards the cameras they enjoy using the most. I still have a place in my heart for an M, but it is harder and harder to find a place in my bag for it, as it is more of a niche camera for me, and the prices are now so extreme that it does not make sense anymore as a secondary camera. If you could get a gently used one for 3-4000 dollars (which is still a lot of money!), it would be another story for me, but starting at 8000+ and it is quite a lot. It says a lot to me that I have essentially replaced it with a 1000 dollar camera and lens combo. For more critical use, the SL2 with a smaller lens does the same duty an M would do without enough of a difference in weight and bulk for me to bother about. 

[John Smith]

2 hours ago, trickness said:

We like what we like, and that always brings an element of the irrational into it.

With the SL2, the ability to see the actual image that I am composing in the moment that is very close to what the captured file (with the EVF) will be is indispensable to me. Personally I think this is of much greater value than the ability to see outside rangefinder frame lines, and especially when you’re shooting anything wider than 35 or longer like 75 and up on an M body. I think the M is really a camera that works best with a 35 or a 50, where the SL excels at any focal length. 

SL2 tech? IBIS, built in diopter, weather sealing, versatility in lens adaptation….I take my SL2 out in the streets of New York and I will shoot for five or six hours at a time, with the SL primes, or M glass. I think everybody that complains about how heavy the camera is should maybe do some push-ups or eat their Wheaties 🤣.

I absolutely get the less is more ethos of the M cameras. But there are so many posts about how heavy the SL is and how much of an impedance it is to taking photographs….I could see taking an M out just because I wanted to try something different, but when I get into anything approaching a professional situation with my camera, it’s the SL every time.

Again we like what we like. But carrying a camera that’s a little bit heavier is an OK trade-off for me given the clear technical superiority of the platform, and every time I see a post slagging the SL2 for being too heavy or too big and how the M is so much better because it is small, I think it’s important to bring up the counterpoints.

 

 

 

 

I bought a PeakDesign slide(?) where I can carry the SL behind my back and that basically solved any complaints about weight when carrying the camera around. 

I really liked my Ms and wanted to keep them. But two things made me jump to the SL2 for everything. First, the M is basically limited to the 50mm lens. You can try the 75mm, but focus is much more hit and miss, and I prefer the 75mm focal length. (I noticed this, too, in Ralph Gibson's Sacred Land where he used a 75mm Summarit for the photographs.) Second is the rangefinder for critical focus. It just so difficult to critically focus with the rangefinder as opposed to the EVF. Many of my portraits with the Ms were off just by a hair and I decided I needed to move on with technology. The SL2 does it all without any worries. It is a fantastic system and IQ is just great.

Edited July 3, 2022 by John Smith

[MakinMemories]

Many years ago I shot a lot with manual SLR's that were much larger and heavier-especially when equipped with motor drives, than an SL2. As I have mentioned before the SL2's weight does not bother me but again I workout several times a week and tip the scales at a fairly lean 210...For me, the SL2 is the perfect continuation of the SLR experience with outstanding interchangeable lenses yet with medium format resolution, auto focus when you want it, built-in high speed burst shooting and a user interface that is second to none...IMHO.

I will still likely pick up a Q3 when released not only as a back-up and something to grab when traveling light, but something GF or future wife would likely love shooting...Plus unless they are really into this craft/hobby/profession, paws off my SL2!

[Photoworks]

22 minutes ago, MakinMemories said:

Many years ago I shot a lot with manual SLR's that were much larger and heavier-especially when equipped with motor drives, than an SL2. As I have mentioned before the SL2's weight does not bother me but again I workout several times a week and tip the scales at a fairly lean 210...For me, the SL2 is the perfect continuation of the SLR experience with outstanding interchangeable lenses yet with medium format resolution, auto focus when you want it, built-in high speed burst shooting and a user interface that is second to none...IMHO.

I will still likely pick up a Q3 when released not only as a back-up and something to grab when traveling light, but something GF or future wife would likely love shooting...Plus unless they are really into this craft/hobby/profession, paws off my SL2!

well I don't mind the SL2 weight . but once you add a back up body  10 batteries, 2 zooms and 3 primes , some time a computer plus cables. well then the SL2 setup is real heavy .

the same setup on Sony is much lighter. I don't need to hit the gym, I am logging around 100 pounds of lighting equipment already.

[Stuart Richardson]

10 batteries, five lenses and a computer sounds a bit extreme to me...what exactly are you doing? I have never run out with two batteries for a whole day, but my work seldom requires hundreds or thousands of shots. I am sure it is possible to use more if you are doing primarily video, but the kit you describe does not sound particularly "normal", especially when added to 100 pounds of lighting equipment. I would imagine that at that point, the weight or bulk of the kit is irrelevant and you would be better off hiring an assistant to help with carrying gear. My 8x10 kit is significantly lighter than that, even with flashes...

Edited July 3, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[Photoworks]

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

10 batteries, five lenses and a computer sounds a bit extreme to me...what exactly are you doing? I have never run out with two batteries for a whole day, but my work seldom requires hundreds or thousands of shots. I am sure it is possible to use more if you are doing primarily video, but the kit you describe does not sound particularly "normal", especially when added to 100 pounds of lighting equipment. I would imagine that at that point, the weight or bulk of the kit is irrelevant and you would be better off hiring an assistant to help with carrying gear. My 8x10 kit is significantly lighter than that, even with flashes...

All day of shooting with two cameras I will use probably 6-7 batteries and have some spare.
I was using the M11 on my last shoot with 2 SL2. M11 went 1500 photos on one battery. Impressive.

On the SL2 I need to change batteries every 2 hours on a busy shoot.

Maybe my shoots are intense, but for professional work I can shot up with 2 batteries... I do bring 1 or 2 assistants 😉

[chris_tribble]

9 hours ago, Photoworks said:.

Maybe my shoots are intense, but for professional work I can shot up with 2 batteries... I do bring 1 or 2 assistants 😉

Ah… an assistant or two would have been nice when I think back to some trips I’ve done. An inguinal hernia after putting a super heavy bag into a Boeing overhead wasn’t much fun (though when I think about, that was when I was using Canon kit!) 🫤

[hansvons]

Interesting how much shooting styles differ. I have four batteries for my SL2-S. I never managed to use more batteries on one day than two. But I can see very well that a third might be used entirely on a long day and a fourth as a backup (I have four batteries). On such battery-consuming occasions, I often do video and stills. And that is the core of the SL2-S to me: a sturdy hybrid camera with best-in-class colour.

I have a set of R primes that are wonderful filmic lenses for video. They flare, are sharp but gentle to the skin, and have tons of character, including a cool-ish colour rendition. But the best thing is that they work like little cine primes to a certain extent. They have a long focus throw, the right direction, and the focus witness marks are (more or less) correct when adapted with a quality adapter like the Novoflex. On jobs with fast-paced subjects requiring quick changes of FOV, the 24-90 does an excellent job. It's even ok for manual-focused video stuff, while fly-by-wire focusing isn't exactly what I call a convincing user experience. However, the results are less filmic than what the R primes deliver and more reality-showing due to the lens' plasticity and modern rendition.

I contemplated the Q2 as a travelling companion, but 28mm is the less-used focal lens in my kit I only use here and then for long shots. And permanently cropping for a 35mm FOV isn't a prospect I'm particularly fond of either. So, I recently bought a Voigtländer 33m Nokton f 1,4. It's my first M mount lens to check how the SL2-S feels with such a tiny lens.

With that lens, I learned to use the Sl2-S for travelling, private events, and family and friends stuff. It's not a GRIII for sure, but not much larger and heavier than an M (I checked that) but much more accessible in terms of focusing and thus quicker to use. I'm so quick to focus with that tab that I see no advantage of AF doing the stuff I do, primarily environmental portraits (anything a filmmaker would call close-up to medium-long shot). The SL2-S outstanding IBIS adds another level of possibilities I don't want to miss.

That would be very different if sports and birding were on the menu. (Sometimes, I attempt semi-professionally shooting birds. I do that with a Nikon and a proper telephoto lens. It's no fun handhold on a stalk, but the SL2-S would be even worse. So I'm considering getting an OM1 and the Olympus 300mm prime. Horse for courses.)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Simone_DF]

18 hours ago, trickness said:

I think everybody that complains about how heavy the camera is should maybe do some push-ups or eat their Wheaties 🤣.

I absolutely get the less is more ethos of the M cameras. But there are so many posts about how heavy the SL is and how much of an impedance it is to taking photographs….I could see taking an M out just because I wanted to try something different, but when I get into anything approaching a professional situation with my camera, it’s the SL every time.

I workout 4-5 times per week, 60 mins HIIT with heavy weights. I have no problem carrying weights for hours and hours.

I'm still complaining about how terribly heavy the SL and its lenses are. From a weight standpoint, they are heavier compared to other mirrorless on the market, sometimes by a huge margin. Furthermore, carrying such heavy weights every day for prolonged period of times, especially if one is using a messenger style bag, can bring severe consequences in the future, like back or spine problems. 

But yes, let's gaslight people instead.