Does a Sony A7R V make sense as a second body alongside my SL2-S?

[James1975]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As per the title. Love the SL2-S for low light. I have a 28 and 50/1.4. It is a sublime combination. But recently I have been thinking about a second body. The Sony has much more resolution, better AF and (from what I´ve read) AWB, a fully articulating screen and is significantly lighter with the 24/1.4 GM lens (for street and landscape).

The other option for the same amount of money would be a Q2 to throw in my bag alongside the SL. 

I would really appreciate some advice. I would use the Leica for portraits and the Sony more for travel and street given the weight and size.

I know the Q2 and Sony are very different beasts but I am also aware that the Q2 and SL2-S combo could work well and negate the need for another "big" body and lens combo while staying in the Leica eco system.

[ajmarton1]

I have the Sony Alpha 1 and love it.  The build quality and size with the e-mount lenses is fantastic.  I am on safari right now in the Serengeti, Tanzania and couldn't be more happy with my kit.  The AR7V is supposed to have a more modern AF so you should check it out in comparison to the Alpha 1.  I can tell you that my hit ratio is very high with birds and animals and the eye tracking is exceptional (human, animal and bird).  And the lenses are fast and light.  Andrew

Edited December 4, 2022 by ajmarton1

[Advertisement]

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

[Al Brown]

Unless you are a Leica purist and only swear by brand loyalty the answer is a hard yes.
I use Sony (for AF), Fujifilm (for digital medium format shots), Canon (for portability) and Mamiya RZ (for analog medium format shots & character) alongside Leica.

[LBJ2]

2 hours ago, James1975 said:

As per the title. Love the SL2-S for low light. I have a 28 and 50/1.4. It is a sublime combination. But recently I have been thinking about a second body. The Sony has much more resolution, better AF and (from what I´ve read) AWB, a fully articulating screen and is significantly lighter with the 24/1.4 GM lens (for street and landscape).

The other option for the same amount of money would be a Q2 to throw in my bag alongside the SL. 

I would really appreciate some advice. I would use the Leica for portraits and the Sony more for travel and street given the weight and size.

I know the Q2 and Sony are very different beasts but I am also aware that the Q2 and SL2-S combo could work well and negate the need for another "big" body and lens combo while staying in the Leica eco system.

You can look at this a few ways:

"Stay in your lane" in this case the Leica lane ( nothing wrong with that) and add the Q2. Many find benefit in familiarity. The Q2 Is very popular for many reasons--well liked across the board.

Or, branch out and give your senses something new. I often find "new" can motivate and at a minimum open up your mind to other possibilities and even more creativity. If the Sony doesn't work out for you, you should be able to sell fairly quickly as these are very popular cameras. Oh and if you've never experienced Sony AF before 😎

[Photoworks]

Why not get the SL2 for High-res?

You already have the lenses, batteries, charger, and it has the same menu to what you have.

Q2 is a nice camera, a little slow at times, the lens is wider than 28mm. Q3 is probably the next new camera from Leica.

The image quality of Sony is good, lenses have improved in the last few years, but menu and handling is still what it is.
I have all latest a7R's and use them, but mostly use Sl2 this days.

On the other hard creativity does not get any better with new gear. The SL2-s is not a low light camera, it is an all around camera.
Often caring less will allow you to do more.

[huwm]

Q2

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It sounds like a needlessly complicated and heavy solution! I can think of a few reasons to carry two incompatible systems, but I'm not sure that they apply.

For one thing, there's always an adaptation period when switching between systems on the same day. Your brain and body needs to re-map every button and function. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it helps if you only use your cameras in a default mode where you only need to press the shutter. In some cases it's better not to do this at all, for instance when the focus ring turns the "wrong" way (Nikon, Pentax). That will affect you constantly, adding a level of self-doubt every time you try to focus.

Even then, it can make sense to carry two systems. For instance, one system might be better at video, or one body might be dedicated to an exotic super-telephoto. I'm not sure that Sony's 24mm is a lens worth switching systems for, especially since the L mount offers 4 native 24mm options (not counting zooms), each of which is at-least as good as Sony's 24/1.4. I'm also not convinced that a small AF speed difference will be material with a 24, like it is with a long lens.

If you are going to run two different systems, you should consider the Sony Alpha 1. It's their flagship. You won't see any real-world difference between 50 and 60 megapixels, but the a1 gives you the best that Sony can provide in every other aspect.

 

[Simone_DF]

The 24mm GM is an outstanding lens, but it's a bit bulky. You could consider one of the Sigmas, and stick it to your SL2-s, unless the articulating screen is a must for you.

[LBJ2]

2 hours ago, BernardC said:

It sounds like a needlessly complicated and heavy solution! I can think of a few reasons to carry two incompatible systems, but I'm not sure that they apply.

For one thing, there's always an adaptation period when switching between systems on the same day. Your brain and body needs to re-map every button and function. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it helps if you only use your cameras in a default mode where you only need to press the shutter. In some cases it's better not to do this at all, for instance when the focus ring turns the "wrong" way (Nikon, Pentax). That will affect you constantly, adding a level of self-doubt every time you try to focus.

Even then, it can make sense to carry two systems. For instance, one system might be better at video, or one body might be dedicated to an exotic super-telephoto. I'm not sure that Sony's 24mm is a lens worth switching systems for, especially since the L mount offers 4 native 24mm options (not counting zooms), each of which is at-least as good as Sony's 24/1.4. I'm also not convinced that a small AF speed difference will be material with a 24, like it is with a long lens.

If you are going to run two different systems, you should consider the Sony Alpha 1. It's their flagship. You won't see any real-world difference between 50 and 60 megapixels, but the a1 gives you the best that Sony can provide in every other aspect.

 

Owning the petite for a FF mirrorless AF lens at this IQ level, Sony GM 24, I can say Sony AF on this 24mm lens is still something to behold particularly at f1,4 even though it's not the fastest from MFD to Infinity focus of the Sony GM lenses. I shoot with the Sony A1 and find it hard to believe the new A7rV AF will acquire targets faster--or maybe I just don't want to believe it will ...ha ha

The only other 24mm lens I know of capable of nailing target faster, is the Leica 24 Lux on a rangefinder in Zone Focus mode 😉😉

Edited December 4, 2022 by LBJ2

[James1975]

2 hours ago, BernardC said:

It sounds like a needlessly complicated and heavy solution! I can think of a few reasons to carry two incompatible systems, but I'm not sure that they apply.

For one thing, there's always an adaptation period when switching between systems on the same day. Your brain and body needs to re-map every button and function. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it helps if you only use your cameras in a default mode where you only need to press the shutter. In some cases it's better not to do this at all, for instance when the focus ring turns the "wrong" way (Nikon, Pentax). That will affect you constantly, adding a level of self-doubt every time you try to focus.

Even then, it can make sense to carry two systems. For instance, one system might be better at video, or one body might be dedicated to an exotic super-telephoto. I'm not sure that Sony's 24mm is a lens worth switching systems for, especially since the L mount offers 4 native 24mm options (not counting zooms), each of which is at-least as good as Sony's 24/1.4. I'm also not convinced that a small AF speed difference will be material with a 24, like it is with a long lens.

If you are going to run two different systems, you should consider the Sony Alpha 1. It's their flagship. You won't see any real-world difference between 50 and 60 megapixels, but the a1 gives you the best that Sony can provide in every other aspect.

 

I agree with much of this. But my thinking is once the initial customisation is set up, it will be pretty simple to manage both systems. I'm a concert pianist, and so quite used to doing different things with different fingers 😂

I was also looking at this little beauty https://pixii.fr/pixii-camera but that is a different thing entirely.

The Q2 is marvellous but it lacks so many things that the Sony will bring, even if aesthetically it is much more beautiful.

The A1 is overkill for me. I never shoot video, I hate the update process on that system (only via clunky desktop software) and in many ways I feel that the A7R V has taken the best parts of the A1 and actually improved the things I would use more (AF, MPs, screen etc).

The simplest thing would be a Q2. But I am drawn to the 24GM and also the 50/1.2. Especially when thinking about photographing dogs, people and landscapes.

[hansvons]

I covered an event yesterday with the SL2-S and will repeat myself: this camera does everything I need people-related. If I was looking elsewhere I‘d either have GAS or I‘d be trying to shoot birds or sports with a super telephoto lens. Or, maybe, I might want to print super large landscapes.

If Leica isn’t serving you well, why not going full Sony? There’s nothing wrong with that. Many pros did that a couple of years ago when Sony led the market and never looked back. Why not get the A7S3 for lowlight and the new A7RV for anything else?

In terms of muscle memory and wallet, that would be the most sensible option. And perhaps, for GAS and the good old times, get a used M sometime in the future.

 

[LBJ2]

2 hours ago, James1975 said:

I agree with much of this. But my thinking is once the initial customisation is set up, it will be pretty simple to manage both systems. I'm a concert pianist, and so quite used to doing different things with different fingers 😂

I was also looking at this little beauty https://pixii.fr/pixii-camera but that is a different thing entirely.

The Q2 is marvellous but it lacks so many things that the Sony will bring, even if aesthetically it is much more beautiful.

The A1 is overkill for me. I never shoot video, I hate the update process on that system (only via clunky desktop software) and in many ways I feel that the A7R V has taken the best parts of the A1 and actually improved the things I would use more (AF, MPs, screen etc).

The simplest thing would be a Q2. But I am drawn to the 24GM and also the 50/1.2. Especially when thinking about photographing dogs, people and landscapes.

I along with many others, will confirm the Sony GM 50 1.2 is excellent! The GM 24 + GM 50 F1.2 is a super nice kit. FWIW, I shoot both Sony and Leica and can think of too many reasons to own both systems so I may not be the best influencer in this thread 😎 And YES! The sooner Sony leaves that old camera firmware update process that requires a computer behind the better! 

My favorite camera/lens update process however is the Leica SL2. Update the camera firmware via the Leica Fotos app, then attach the lens to the camera and update the lens--bravissimo! 

[John Smith]

2 hours ago, hansvons said:

In terms of muscle memory and wallet, that would be the most sensible option. And perhaps, for GAS and the good old times, get a used M sometime in the future.

That’s one reason I finally decided to let go of the M, and have a Q2 on order. It looks like it will fit well with the SL system.

[Tailwagger]

Along side? To my mind, no. While on paper one might view these two as having complimentary strengths, in the real world the cost in terms of weight, size and $$$ is untenable AFAIC.  The true cost of a system, again in terms of mass and cash, is in the glass. If you carry an SL2/SL-S the lenses are shared, so you save all around. Carry two incompatible systems and nearly everything... batteries... filters... lenses... has to double.  I'll carry an SL2 with an M quite often, but my entire three lens M kit fits in less space than a 70-200, weighs nearly the same and I can, if need be, comfortably mount M glass on the SL2.

OTOH,  if you have no intention of shooting with them in the field at the same time and instead are thinking you'd use the Sony in instances where you wanted faster AF or more pixels, then sure. 

Edited December 4, 2022 by Tailwagger

[proenca]

I had a SL ( og 601 ) and went Sony A7RIII - and got into the GM lineup lenses.

Few really stole my heart, like the 24mm GM , 135 GM and the 50mm 1.2. Fabulous lenses.

A7RIV was a great camera and the V is even better.

Now ditched all that up for a SL2.

Why ? Because as advanced ( as they are ) , as the best AF ( A7RV AF is out of this world, kicking Alpha 1 in the teeth and that says everything ) out there, few things bother me to the bone : 

- construction. nothing wrong with it, they are just too small. bear in mind IV and V cameras have a beefier grip so they mitigate this a bit, but they are just too small for me
- plastic feeling. they feel cheap. again, nothing wrong with materials per se, just feel plasticy
- menus : they are the most stupid thing ever, period
- you have the feeling that you are carrying a laptop that does everything for you and if you didnt get the shot, its the camera fault

So in the end, I bought a few M lenses and I was more happy carrying my old Leica M9 than a A7RV.

So I figured - bollocks, lets go back the SL line and I found a superb SL2 deal.

Is the Sony AF faster ? yes, by a mile. more advanced ? by far. Colors ? I prefer Leica, but that doesnt mean you can't get nice colors from the Sony. Lenses ? Sony has more and more mature system lens wise than Leica SL, by a mile. 

But.. for me its about the journey, not the end result per se.

If I was you, I woudl get a SL2 if it would fit my needs ( and if your needs are increased resolution ) . If your needs are AF performance, then Sony is the way to go - but I love the fact with the SL2 I can share M lenses and have L lenses. I hate carrying multiple systems.

[Photoworks]

23 minutes ago, proenca said:

- construction. nothing wrong with it, they are just too small. bear in mind IV and V cameras have a beefier grip so they mitigate this a bit, but they are just too small for me
- plastic feeling. they feel cheap. again, nothing wrong with materials per se, just feel plasticy
- menus : they are the most stupid thing ever, period
- you have the feeling that you are carrying a laptop that does everything for you and if you didnt get the shot, its the camera fault

Excellent summary 

If I can just add

• Sony come out with new camera every 1-2 years and they give you 1 new option on the a7R system, and 4 months later come out with a1 v2 with a new future that you could use on all the other cameras you got 3 months ago. no new futures in  firmware 
• Sony Menu are terrible, probably the worst ! Sony never changes them as new FIRMWARE come out. the A7R3-4-5 menu so different that you can use the camera side by side, just terrible.  I must say Leica updates in Firmware are so nice. Simple Menu, different cameras menu are getting more similar to each other and so are the buttons.

[James1975]

9 hours ago, proenca said:

- construction. nothing wrong with it, they are just too small. bear in mind IV and V cameras have a beefier grip so they mitigate this a bit, but they are just too small for me
- plastic feeling. they feel cheap. again, nothing wrong with materials per se, just feel plasticy
- menus : they are the most stupid thing ever, period
- you have the feeling that you are carrying a laptop that does everything for you and if you didnt get the shot, its the camera fault

agreed. Although size is what I am looking for. Something more compact and light for grabbing on my way out the door. The Sl system is a conscious choice because it's big and heavy. I'm hoping the Sony would be more impulsive given the lower weight and size. And yes, those menus. Oy. But let's see. Perhaps a Q2 is ideal for a grab and shoot. The new Ghost edition looks really lovely and no premium added to the price.

[frame-it]

30 minutes ago, James1975 said:

agreed. Although size is what I am looking for. Something more compact and light for grabbing on my way out the door. The Sl system is a conscious choice because it's big and heavy. I'm hoping the Sony would be more impulsive given the lower weight and size. And yes, those menus. Oy. But let's see. Perhaps a Q2 is ideal for a grab and shoot. The new Ghost edition looks really lovely and no premium added to the price.

 

 

22 hours ago, James1975 said:

more for travel and street given the weight and size.

get a fuji XH-2

loads of moaning and groaning about sony menus all over the net

but once the camera is setup properly one rarely needs to go into the menus.

the SL2S menu is almost like the marina trench, but once setup properly one can avoid the menus

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by frame-it

[hansvons]

The reason why I swapped a Fujifilm XE3 and a Red cine system for the SL2-S two years ago is the Leica’s colour rendition, form factor, built quality and versatility all crammed into one camera. 

Do I miss the portability of the little Fuji? Yes. Do I miss its colour? No. Do I miss the Red system? Yes, in a way I do. But for larger jobs I can rent and anything else can be done with the SL2-S without extra thoughts. The Leica’s colours are sublime!

Having only one camera is pure luxury. That allows me to deep dive into its capabilities without distraction, especially when editing, keeping the closet tidy and developing a distinct muscle memory. 

A year ago or so, I was in the same position, when the brilliant but heavy 24-90 started to annoy me on longer walks or on personal travels. For testing, I got a little Voigtländer 35mm M lens that became a keeper because it’s precisely the lens that turns the SL2-S into a manageable personal travel camera.

At some point I might swap it for an 80ies Summicron - or not. But 28mm is too short for my vision of photography and that's why I didn't purchase a Q2 yet (and there are other reasons such as sensitivity and EVF). 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[proenca]

3 hours ago, James1975 said:

agreed. Although size is what I am looking for. Something more compact and light for grabbing on my way out the door. The Sl system is a conscious choice because it's big and heavy. I'm hoping the Sony would be more impulsive given the lower weight and size. And yes, those menus. Oy. But let's see. Perhaps a Q2 is ideal for a grab and shoot. The new Ghost edition looks really lovely and no premium added to the price.

Again, I have nothing against carrying a Sony and a Leica - no problems with that.

Sony is smaller but not exactly featherweight with GM lenses - again, lighter than SL+SL lenses but not exaectly feather light.

If you want something small, light, good AF, fantastic lens, featherweight, joy to use : one letter and one number for you : Q2. 

Its the most spetacular grab and go camera ever.