Do I have realistic expectations of the SL?

[oldwino]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I picked up a used SL for the same reason - to use with some of my M lenses and some older LTM lenses that I like. It is great fun to use like this, and focusing is easy. I also use it with my old Nikkor AI-S lenses - also very enjoyable and easy. 

But my local dealer had some of the Lumix primes at a ridiculous price (new, but at the going used prices), so I bought a set to try. They are wonderfully sharp, gently rendering, and light. I prefer to use them over the manual focus lenses now...for most situations. 

I do not miss the IBIS, but I usually don't shoot very long lenses (longest is 135).

[hdmesa]

I just returned a used SL 601 and will be going back to the SL2-S. Years ago, I used to own an SL w/24-90, but I never had tried it with M lenses. Couldn't get it back in the box fast enough to return. Cramped up my hand whereas SL2-S was very comfortable. Menus and unmarked buttons are a mind-f*** compared to the SL2-S. No IBIS is doable, but it sucks for manual focus because it means the EVF is not stabilized, and it feels like I was trying to steady a 500mm lens and not a 50mm lens. Auto ISO does not accept variable shutter speed settings – I had to select a single minimum shutter speed to get Auto ISO to work. EVF is nowhere near the SL2-S experience. Images in playback have banding and other "trauma". Zooming into maximum magnification during playback is poor quality that does not show the sharpness adequately enough to evaluate if focus was optimal. IQ of M lenses in the corners suffers compared to the SL2-S, which comes much closer to the results I got with the M11. 

I could go on, but you get the idea. A mint used one is about half the retail price of a new SL2-S – money better put toward current tech, IMO, especially if you're eligible for the current $650 discount offer from Leica.

Edited August 24, 2022 by hdmesa

[6bit]

I love the SL and when I travel with it I only use M lenses. 🙂 I think you are on the mark with the SL. 

[Me Leica!]

Great selection of replies here, thank you to everyone for your comments, both in favour of and against getting the SL.

My lenses are a 50 and 90, both of which I have no trouble focusing on the M262. My main reasons for considering this change is a) there's always that niggling feeling that the M might go out of alignment at some point, which usually means a long period of not using it, b) the chance to use AF when necessary, c) a wider selection of lenses, and d) as I mentioned, the chance to use the Otus and nail focus every time.

I should mention that I don't currently have an Otus; I did once, on a DSLR, and when you nailed it it was magic. But it was also hit and miss and I ended up selling it. Where I live at least, used Otuses are actually reasonably attractively priced given their pedigree. 

Anyway. Plenty to think about, and once again everyone's input is appreciated.

[MJB]

It’s amazing to hear someone complain about the finder in the SL. That thing is amazing. The camera was universally acclaimed for its excellent finder when it came out, and even all these years later it remains better than most. I mean, I’m sure the SL2-S is better, but that doesn’t really take away from the older camera. And I don’t understand the bit about needing the EVF stabilized with a 50mm lens, nor the inability to nail critical focus. It honestly sounds more like operator error than anything wrong with the camera. I mean, I get it, it’s heavy and not everyone gels with every camera, but criticizing the EVF seems like a stretch…

[hdmesa]

55 minutes ago, MJB said:

It’s amazing to hear someone complain about the finder in the SL. That thing is amazing. The camera was universally acclaimed for its excellent finder when it came out, and even all these years later it remains better than most. I mean, I’m sure the SL2-S is better, but that doesn’t really take away from the older camera. And I don’t understand the bit about needing the EVF stabilized with a 50mm lens, nor the inability to nail critical focus. It honestly sounds more like operator error than anything wrong with the camera. I mean, I get it, it’s heavy and not everyone gels with every camera, but criticizing the EVF seems like a stretch…

Have you used an SL2-S and compared it to the SL? Have you even used a camera with IBIS to zoom and manual focus then gone back to non-IBIS to compare? Can't even believe I would have to type out why the SL's seven year-old tech is still respectable but pales in comparison to the new tech.

Re: EVF, it's not the resolution of the EVF panel itself that is the issue, it's the image being fed to it off a seven year-old sensor, and the seven year-old processor that pushes the data around. I said the SL EVF experience was amazing for its time, and it was – but it does show its age today. And get this straight as to what I'm saying – not saying the SL is any different than it was when it came out – I'm saying in seven years time, we have something much more amazing available to us, and IMO it's worth the difference in price. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by hdmesa

[MJB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

Have you used an SL2-S and compared it to the SL? Have you even used a camera with IBIS to zoom and manual focus then gone back to non-IBIS to compare? Can't even believe I would have to type out why the SL's seven year-old tech is still respectable but pales in comparison to the new tech.

Re: EVF, it's not the resolution of the EVF panel itself that is the issue, it's the image being fed to it off a seven year-old sensor, and the seven year-old processor that pushes the data around. I said the SL EVF experience was amazing for its time, and it was – but it does show its age today. And get this straight as to what I'm saying – not saying the SL is any different than it was when it came out – I'm saying in seven years time, we have something much more amazing available to us, and IMO it's worth the difference in price. 

I have not used the SL2 or SL2-S, but I'm sure the EVF is better - I acknowledged as much.  But your rather dramatic assessment of the SL's EVF was that it was basically unusable, could not be relied upon for manual focusing, and suffered for lack of IBIS even when using a 50mm prime lens - all rather laughable claims.

And you may think the SL2-S is worth the price differential, but at 2x the cost of a used SL the difference is staggering.  Maybe you have no problem spending $4k for a used camera, which is fine, but that's much more than I'm personally willing to spend for any camera.

[ravinj]

On 8/24/2022 at 3:49 AM, Me Leica! said:

Great selection of replies here, thank you to everyone for your comments, both in favour of and against getting the SL.

My lenses are a 50 and 90, both of which I have no trouble focusing on the M262. My main reasons for considering this change is a) there's always that niggling feeling that the M might go out of alignment at some point, which usually means a long period of not using it, b) the chance to use AF when necessary, c) a wider selection of lenses, and d) as I mentioned, the chance to use the Otus and nail focus every time.

I should mention that I don't currently have an Otus; I did once, on a DSLR, and when you nailed it it was magic. But it was also hit and miss and I ended up selling it. Where I live at least, used Otuses are actually reasonably attractively priced given their pedigree. 

Anyway. Plenty to think about, and once again everyone's input is appreciated.

Don't underestimate the fun factor of using the M camera. I use the SL2, but when it comes to using M lenses, I still prefer the M rangefinder. 

IMHO using the Otus without IBIS on any camera handheld will not yield the best that lens is capable of. 

[ravinj]

2 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Have you used an SL2-S and compared it to the SL? Have you even used a camera with IBIS to zoom and manual focus then gone back to non-IBIS to compare? Can't even believe I would have to type out why the SL's seven year-old tech is still respectable but pales in comparison to the new tech.

Re: EVF, it's not the resolution of the EVF panel itself that is the issue, it's the image being fed to it off a seven year-old sensor, and the seven year-old processor that pushes the data around. I said the SL EVF experience was amazing for its time, and it was – but it does show its age today. And get this straight as to what I'm saying – not saying the SL is any different than it was when it came out – I'm saying in seven years time, we have something much more amazing available to us, and IMO it's worth the difference in price. 

+1

IBIS is a miracle. Not only for stabilizing the view in EVF while focusing but also being able to use lenses like the APO Elmarit R 180 handheld with pinsharp tripod-equivalent sharpness even at 1/30S. The latter would be a disaster without IBIS.

Another reason for IBIS is to be able to keep the ISO at base even in low light for static subjects. Being able to consistently get perfect sharpness at 1/10s with the SL 90 handheld is magic.

[hdmesa]

21 minutes ago, MJB said:

I have not used the SL2 or SL2-S, but I'm sure the EVF is better - I acknowledged as much.  But your rather dramatic assessment of the SL's EVF was that it was basically unusable, could not be relied upon for manual focusing, and suffered for lack of IBIS even when using a 50mm prime lens - all rather laughable claims.

And you may think the SL2-S is worth the price differential, but at 2x the cost of a used SL the difference is staggering.  Maybe you have no problem spending $4k for a used camera, which is fine, but that's much more than I'm personally willing to spend for any camera.

I really don't want to be draw into an emotional argument, but maybe that's my fault for talking about the SL in terms of it being lacking versus in terms of the SL2-S having an advantage. See if this is better:

SL2-S advantages over the SL (IMO):

• More intuitive menu system and back button design
• More comfortable grip
• More convenient to manual focus an M lens due to steadied image due to IBIS
• Ability to shoot M lenses handheld and achieve sharp results at lower shutter speeds than possible without IBIS
• Live view in the EVF is sharper when zoomed in for manual focus
• Better tonal gradations and shadow detail in the EVF
• Review of images in the EVF and LCD at full magnification is tack sharp and makes it easier to verify desired focus was achieved 
• Best-in-class high ISO performance (maintains good DR, low noise, and more accurate color at high ISOs)
• Excellent dynamic range
• BSI sensor performance improves corner and edge performance with many M lenses

Leaving out AF performance since I don't have any experience using Leica AF lenses on the SL2-S, just the SL.

SL Advantages over the SL2-S (IMO):

• Easier to use 4-button layout with gloves
• Built-in GPS
• Lower cost by 1/2

Also, please be fair when characterizing what I said about the cost/value proposition. I did say it was my opinion (which should be obvious, but on the Internet, gotta say that so people don't lose their minds):

On 8/23/2022 at 7:29 PM, hdmesa said:

...A mint used one is about half the retail price of a new SL2-S – money better put toward current tech, IMO, especially if you're eligible for the current $650 discount offer from Leica.

 

[MJB]

4 minutes ago, ravinj said:

Don't underestimate the fun factor of using the M camera. I use the SL2, but when it comes to using M lenses, I still prefer the M rangefinder. 

IMHO using the Otus without IBIS on any camera handheld will not yield the best that lens is capable of. 

I really don't understand the dependance that people have on IBIS.  You absolutely can get excellent results without it, most especially with a fast lens like that.  I don't mean to be argumentative - I just honestly don't understand what all of the fuss is about.  I've used IBIS on some cameras and could frankly take it or leave it.  It's kind of cool in some low light situations, or I guess with long telephotos (which I don't use), but it's almost become a crutch that people think they can't do without these days.

[MJB]

2 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

I really don't want to be draw into an emotional argument, but maybe that's my fault for talking about the SL in terms of it being lacking versus in terms of the SL2-S having an advantage. See if this is better:

SL2-S advantages over the SL (IMO):

• More intuitive menu system and back button design
• More comfortable grip
• More convenient to manual focus an M lens due to steadied image due to IBIS
• Ability to shoot M lenses handheld and achieve sharp results at lower shutter speeds than possible without IBIS
• Live view in the EVF is sharper when zoomed in for manual focus
• Better tonal gradations and shadow detail in the EVF
• Review of images in the EVF and LCD at full magnification is tack sharp and makes it easier to verify desired focus was achieved 
• Best-in-class high ISO performance (maintains good DR, low noise, and more accurate color at high ISOs)
• Excellent dynamic range
• BSI sensor performance improves corner and edge performance with many M lenses

Leaving out AF performance since I don't have any experience using Leica AF lenses on the SL2-S, just the SL.

SL Advantages over the SL2-S (IMO):

• Easier to use 4-button layout with gloves
• Built-in GPS
• Lower cost by 1/2

Also, please be fair when characterizing what I said about the cost/value proposition. I did say it was my opinion (which should be obvious, but on the Internet, gotta say that so people don't lose their minds):

 

Fair enough about it being your opinion, my apologies as I truthfully don't mean to invalidate your position.  And no argument from me that the SL2-S is the better camera.  I certainly would've opted for it if cost were not a consideration.  I just think that the SL remains plenty capable and should be seen as a viable alternative to a budget-conscious shopper.

[ravinj]

1 minute ago, MJB said:

I really don't understand the dependance that people have on IBIS.  You absolutely can get excellent results without it, most especially with a fast lens like that.  I don't mean to be argumentative - I just honestly don't understand what all of the fuss is about.  I've used IBIS on some cameras and could frankly take it or leave it.  It's kind of cool in some low light situations, or I guess with long telephotos (which I don't use), but it's almost become a crutch that people think they can't do without these days.

I think you answered your own question - you don't use long telephotos. Let me know how it goes with a 90mm at 1/10s without any stabilization.

[hdmesa]

2 minutes ago, MJB said:

I really don't understand the dependance that people have on IBIS.  You absolutely can get excellent results without it, most especially with a fast lens like that.  I don't mean to be argumentative - I just honestly don't understand what all of the fuss is about.  I've used IBIS on some cameras and could frankly take it or leave it.  It's kind of cool in some low light situations, or I guess with long telephotos (which I don't use), but it's almost become a crutch that people think they can't do without these days.

I'm not going back to 2015 and arguing about IBIS. Take it or leave it. Lots of useful features today we don't "need" but we use: lens stabilization, autofocus, high ISO, high DR, etc. All, including IBIS, can be useful even if not necessary.

 

[ravinj]

Well you don't even need a camera. Just buy picture postcards.

[hdmesa]

16 minutes ago, MJB said:

Fair enough about it being your opinion, my apologies as I truthfully don't mean to invalidate your position.  And no argument from me that the SL2-S is the better camera.  I certainly would've opted for it if cost were not a consideration.  I just think that the SL remains plenty capable and should be seen as a viable alternative to a budget-conscious shopper.

Thank you, I appreciate that. After selling my M11, I had agonized over going back to the SL2-S or saving some coin and buying an SL. I'm a huge fan of the SL sensor with regard to low-ISO color (having owned the SL and the original Q before, which share the same sensor). But once I got the SL and started using it, it stung when I realized I felt I'd made the wrong decision (for me), so that probably came across strongly in my post.

Edited August 27, 2022 by hdmesa

[MJB]

9 minutes ago, ravinj said:

I think you answered your own question - you don't use long telephotos. Let me know how it goes with a 90mm at 1/10s without any stabilization.

But that's a very specific shooting situation.  You previously said that the OP could not get the most out of the Otus handheld without IBIS.  First of all, we don't know what focal length Otus the OP is talking about (unless I missed it), but the fact is that in most shooting situations, IBIS is simply not a factor at all.  Yes, of course there are specific scenarios where IBIS excels and where one would've missed the shot without it, no question.  If I could wave a magic wand and have IBIS on all of my cameras, including my film cameras, I would do it.  My point of contention is with your claim that you can't get the most out of the lens without it - sure, maybe not at 1/10 s, but is that really your most used shutter speed?

[MJB]

5 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Thank you, I appreciate that. After selling my M11, I had agonized over going back to the SL2-S or saving some coin and buying an SL. I'm a huge fan of the SL sensor with regard to low-ISO color. But once I got the SL and started using it, it stung when I realized I felt I'd made the wrong decision (for me), so that probably came across strongly in my post.

It's all good I 'm sure I probably came off as too defensive anyway.  It's of course impossible to really tell what one's tone is online, I for one sometimes get excited geeking out talking about cameras and photography and certainly never mean it in an unfriendly way, but I guess it's easy to overdo it sometimes when your drafting a post and delineating your very well-reasoned position on a topic, lol ("you" being me, in this case).

Edited August 27, 2022 by MJB

[hdmesa]

5 minutes ago, MJB said:

It's all good I 'm sure I probably came off as too defensive anyway.  It's of course impossible to really tell what one's tone is online, I for one sometimes get excited geeking out talking about cameras and photography and certainly never mean it in an unfriendly way, but I guess it's easy to overdo it sometimes when your drafting a post and delineating your very well-reasoned position on a topic, lol ("you" being me, in this case).

No worries. "Doesn't have a feature, but I don't need it" is just as valid as "Has a feature, and I can't live without it." 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ravinj]

14 minutes ago, MJB said:

But that's a very specific shooting situation.  You previously said that the OP could not get the most out of the Otus handheld without IBIS.  First of all, we don't know what focal length Otus the OP is talking about (unless I missed it), but the fact is that in most shooting situations, IBIS is simply not a factor at all.  Yes, of course there are specific scenarios where IBIS excels and where one would've missed the shot without it, no question.  If I could wave a magic wand and have IBIS on all of my cameras, including my film cameras, I would do it.  My point of contention is with your claim that you can't get the most out of the lens without it - sure, maybe not at 1/10 s, but is that really your most used shutter speed?

Every shooting situation is specific. Eye-AF is also useless and so on. And yes, 1/10, 1/30 is my usual use case, esp at dawn. I would stop worrying about the OP - there is enough data here to make a determination what works best.