SL2-S and Nikon Z6 II

[B Mayer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I’m currently an owner of a Z6 II, which I have nothing to complain about really. Excellent image quality when combined with the excellent Z lenses. 
 

However, I’m considering buying a SL2-S as a first step into the Leica’s world. 
 

Unfortunately I can’t find many comparisons between these two cameras in terms of image quality. Also, I’m wondering about this “shooting with a Leica” experience that everyone tells me about. 
 

I wonder if anyone here have used both cameras and can share the experience of one over another.

[Advertisement]

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

[Luke_Miller]

I have the Z6 and the SL1 & SL2.  The Z6 is an excellent camera, but I have not bonded with it. I use back-button focusing and the position of the Z6's AF-On button is directly above the Joystick. I invariably hit the Joystick moving the focus point when pressing the AF-On button. In this regard the Leica SL bodies work much better for me.

I love the way the SL bodies feel in my hand.  The Z6 feels like a typical Nikon, polycarbonate skin over a metal frame. The Leica feels like the solid block of aluminum the body is machined from. A totally different experience. The controls and menus are very different.  I prefer Leica's, but others may not. I can't really speak to the "Leica Experience" other to say that my Leica bodies seem to be designed by people who actually use the cameras which is not the impression I always get with my Nikons.

That "first step into the Leica world" can be pricey.  While others may have a different view, I believe the SL bodies are best experienced with Leica glass.  Not to say other makers do not produce good lenses, but that the current Leica lenses (M mount and L mount) bring out the best the cameras can produce.  I subscribe to Reid Reviews which regularly tests Leica and competing brand lenses. While some non-Leica lenses will perform as well or slightly better in some of the tests, at the end of the test series it is the Leica lens you would buy (if you could afford it).

Depending on what you like to shoot, you may find the SL2 autofocus limiting.  Presumably the next generation bodies will have PDAF/CDAF autofocus, but the current generation has only CDAF which is not nearly as useful on moving subjects as that of your Z6.  Not an issue for me, since I have other bodies to choose from for action photography.

Any image quality differences I see between my Z6 and SL shots I attribute to the lenses. My Z lenses are excellent and an improvement over their F Mount counterparts.  My APO Leica L mount lenses take it to another level.  If someone asked me if they should buy a Nikon Z6 and Nikon Z lenses or a Leica SL2-S and third party lenses I think I would say the Z6 would be at least comparable at a much lower price point.

I've been shooting Nikon SLRs since 1975 and moved to Nikon DSLRs in 2002.  Have a cabinet full of Nikon glass including many of the exotics. Got the Z6 in 2019.  I have always been happy with the results from both the Nikon camera and lenses. Last year I added the Leica SL and SL2 bodies and the Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90 f/2.8-4 ASPH., Leica APO-Summicron-SL 35 f/2 ASPH., and Leica APO-Summicron-SL 75 f/2 ASPH.  Couldn't be happier.  While I enjoy the results I get with them, how they feel in my hand is equally important. Every time I pick them up I want to go out and capture photographs.  In addition to the Z6 I shoot with the Nikon D850 and D5.  All excellent, but just tools for a task.  I am passionate about my SL Kit 😃

[mmradman]

I swapped SL1 for Z7 some 4 years ago. Using Z7 occasionally with M and R lenses as I did regularly on SL1 but that is by the by.  Principal reason I swapped I needed AF lens at the time and didn’t wish to spend kings random on L lens, ever growing range of excellent Nikkor S lenses validated that decision.  Just added 400mm f4.5, amazing design optically and mechanically. I would be looking forward to Z8 which is supposed to be baby Z9, time will tell.

Question to original poster, other than perhaps GAS what is key motivation to consider SL system over Z considering both are same Mp cameras, I would understand M or Q as being unique Leica.  Other than I’m being bored or curios and wanting to acquire brand legend there is nothing in SL system to beat Z system performance and capability wise, including superb S lenses. My 12+ year old SB-800 flash works perfectly on Z camera in all its modes. 

 

[tom0511]

I once used a Nikon Z7 and SL2, one day sold the Nikon.

I prefered overall the color from the Leica, and I also preferred the user interface and more simple menu system of Leica.

On the other side the Z-bodies offer a smaller size factor which is nice, and the Nikon lenses offer also very good performance at quite a bit lower price, and Nikon offers more lens options.

And the AF of Nikon is better.

[B Mayer]

35 minutes ago, mmradman said:

I swapped SL1 for Z7 some 4 years ago. Using Z7 occasionally with M and R lenses as I did regularly on SL1 but that is by the by.  Principal reason I swapped I needed AF lens at the time and didn’t wish to spend kings random on L lens, ever growing range of excellent Nikkor S lenses validated that decision.  Just added 400mm f4.5, amazing design optically and mechanically. I would be looking forward to Z8 which is supposed to be baby Z9, time will tell.

Question to original poster, other than perhaps GAS what is key motivation to consider SL system over Z considering both are same Mp cameras, I would understand M or Q as being unique Leica.  Other than I’m being bored or curios and wanting to acquire brand legend there is nothing in SL system to beat Z system performance and capability wise, including superb S lenses. My 12+ year old SB-800 flash works perfectly on Z camera in all its modes. 

 

@mmradman I’m primarily looking for a different experience. Indeed curious about Leica and all the history behind it. I’m still considering a Leica M. I have a Nikon S2 Rangefinder and the experience of shooting with that is amazing, as it would be with a Leica M. It’s pricey though.
 

The SL2-S + 24-70mm is currently £7000 in Leica’s store. A M11 is sold for £7600 without lenses. Then I was basically wondering if shooting with a SL2-S would be a good entry point and give me this “different experience”. But you’re right, Mp wise they are pretty much the same. Might be better saving cash and get an M camera. 

[dpitt]

1 hour ago, B Mayer said:

@mmradman I’m primarily looking for a different experience. Indeed curious about Leica and all the history behind it. I’m still considering a Leica M. I have a Nikon S2 Rangefinder and the experience of shooting with that is amazing, as it would be with a Leica M. It’s pricey though.
 

The SL2-S + 24-70mm is currently £7000 in Leica’s store. A M11 is sold for £7600 without lenses. Then I was basically wondering if shooting with a SL2-S would be a good entry point and give me this “different experience”. But you’re right, Mp wise they are pretty much the same. Might be better saving cash and get an M camera. 

Almost 15 years ago, I was a happy Nikon shooter. My first Nikon was a Nikon FE in the late seventies. I jumped into digital with the Nikon E990 and Nikon D70. It was a reasonably good experience, but I missed the control I had with manual focus on the Nikon FE. Too much distraction compared to film shooting. And also the feeling of technique driving me instead of the other way around. Like the AF system focusing exactly on what I NOT wanted to focus on and losing a shot because I had to take time to choose a different focus point. I also longed for better quality. The Nikon D300 looked promising but seemed even further away from my goal regarding control and simplicity. And most of all, in the Nikon world better seemed to always mean heavier and bulkier. 

This led me to postpone the decision to upgrade until some day I picked up a M8 in a store. It was heavy but compact! The lenses fast and tiny... And then I looked through the viewfinder! Clear as day, the feeling of just being in the scene. It felt like coming home. The Nikon FE feeling was back and much more so than it ever was. And then the moment I opened the first files in Light Room. The files were a big improvement out of camera compared to the D70 and did not need much work to achieve optimal results like the D70 files... 

Now,15 years later you can argue things have changed, and in some ways they have. The Z series body is less bulky and much better than my D70 was. But it is more complex to handle and the lenses are even bulkier than the DSLR lenses. I know them well because my brother in law has the Z6 and an uncle has the Z6 II. I would never trade these for my 13 year old M9, much less so if I had a M11 now. The form factor is a world apart, certainly in lenses. And control is better, not worse with the M11 compared to the M8 I started with.

If you want a different experience, try an M. If you are like me it will be love at first sight and you will wish you did this years ago. If you do not like it, sell the M and move on to the Leica SL or go back to Nikon. And what about the money? Well, that is the nice thing about Leica. Buy your  first M second hand from a trusted store, and you will not lose much in lets say a year. Maybe you will even make money on the sale. Second hand M lenses tend to go up in price too. So with a bit of luck you will have had a free rent for a year, if you will ever want to part with it.

Just my 2 cents...

 

Edited February 21, 2023 by dpitt

[hamey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

when you can attach Leica M, R, S and original SL lenses plus added bonus of Nikon F and Canon EF glass to it.

It has a MAGNIFICENT EVF beautiful build quality and it's  .............IMHO the BEST camera that Leica makes.

The simple answer is the SL2-S or it's brother the SL2.

They are in a class of their own, and not even the M series cameras can stand in their shadow.

[Ko.Fe.]

Where is odd believe (not technically competent) what it is possible to adjust colors in PP without loss of quality. 

Unfortunately, I'm close to digital image processing in cameras and in post since earlier nineties. And I prefer large screens to iPhones to look at images.

I have played with Z files in PP and just did not liked the colors and outcome. Leica is different on CMOS sensors rendering.

One thing you need to know about SL series... Depending where you are, it might be no service, not even Leica direct presence. For example, no service, no Leica in Canada.

USA Leica, but no SL series in-house service. 

And with Leica service, do not expect much. Nothing like on-line service progress updates and so on. 

Any Leica camera is very nice to have. They just totally different from typical Japan originated cameras. But if you and/or else depend on your images, better to have non-Leica backup.  

[mmradman]

4 hours ago, B Mayer said:

@mmradman I’m primarily looking for a different experience. Indeed curious about Leica and all the history behind it. I’m still considering a Leica M. I have a Nikon S2 Rangefinder and the experience of shooting with that is amazing, as it would be with a Leica M. It’s pricey though.
 

The SL2-S + 24-70mm is currently £7000 in Leica’s store. A M11 is sold for £7600 without lenses. Then I was basically wondering if shooting with a SL2-S would be a good entry point and give me this “different experience”. But you’re right, Mp wise they are pretty much the same. Might be better saving cash and get an M camera. 

Treat yourself to secondhand M240 or M10, cost far less than 7-8 grand M11.  Choice of good M mount lenses is vast, lots of excellent Voightlanders costing far less than Leica M.

if you are uk based try London camera exchange, also usual Leica dealers.

[Chaemono]

Am 21.2.2023 um 14:24 schrieb B Mayer:

Hi,

I’m currently an owner of a Z6 II, which I have nothing to complain about really. Excellent image quality when combined with the excellent Z lenses. 
 

However, I’m considering buying a SL2-S as a first step into the Leica’s world. 
 

Unfortunately I can’t find many comparisons between these two cameras in terms of image quality. Also, I’m wondering about this “shooting with a Leica” experience that everyone tells me about. 
 

I wonder if anyone here have used both cameras and can share the experience of one over another.

Z6 II  OLPF, SL2-S no OLPF. Even α7 III doesn’t use an OLPF. If you are obsessive about fine detail sharpness, don’t get the Z6 II. If you’re obsessive about color moiré , get it.

[tangosix]

My journey was Z6II to Z7II to M11 and now to SL2s. 

I kept the z7ii for some time shooting it along side the sl2s. 

Your satisfaction will depend on your use case.   

Color.  I am Not spending hours editing colors now and often the sl2s produces something better than I imagined it to be.  The white balance of the z6II seems to be far more sensitive. 

SL APO glass is reason enough to make the change. 

I enjoy the Leica files more, enjoy putting more thought into each image and because of that I am getting epic level images that I want to hang on the wall.   

 

[Dipal]

On 2/21/2023 at 9:24 PM, B Mayer said:

Hi,

I’m currently an owner of a Z6 II, which I have nothing to complain about really. Excellent image quality when combined with the excellent Z lenses. 
 

However, I’m considering buying a SL2-S as a first step into the Leica’s world. 
 

Unfortunately I can’t find many comparisons between these two cameras in terms of image quality. Also, I’m wondering about this “shooting with a Leica” experience that everyone tells me about. 
 

I wonder if anyone here have used both cameras and can share the experience of one over another.

I  came to the SL2-S from a Z6.

I feel the 'experience' is what will matter the most - shooting with the SL is tangibly a better experience. However it is a rabbit hole (I'm sure you're aware of this) and as you accumulate expensive glass the tangible benefits continue to diminish. 

Please don't get me wrong - I LOVE Leica and its philosophy and the glass they produce (APO - SL: OMG ) but damn it puts a hole in your wallet like nothing else. Trust me, as solid as those mo**er**ck**g SIGMA Art and Contemporary glass is you'll never be satisfied until you get the SL glass.

Looking at your inputs above and considering you're looking at it more from an experience perspective - I'd suggest you go for an M body and M glass if you just want to experience the 'Leica magic'.

[B Mayer]

7 hours ago, Dipal said:

I  came to the SL2-S from a Z6.

I feel the 'experience' is what will matter the most - shooting with the SL is tangibly a better experience. However it is a rabbit hole (I'm sure you're aware of this) and as you accumulate expensive glass the tangible benefits continue to diminish. 

Please don't get me wrong - I LOVE Leica and its philosophy and the glass they produce (APO - SL: OMG ) but damn it puts a hole in your wallet like nothing else. Trust me, as solid as those mo**er**ck**g SIGMA Art and Contemporary glass is you'll never be satisfied until you get the SL glass.

Looking at your inputs above and considering you're looking at it more from an experience perspective - I'd suggest you go for an M body and M glass if you just want to experience the 'Leica magic'.

Yeah, in fact I’m primarily looking for experiencing Leica and a different way of shooting. I’m very happy with the results of my Z6 II when combined with the excellent Z glasses. 

Then the SL2-S seemed to be a good entry point price-wise, especially because it comes bundled with a 24-70mm which is my general go to for 90% of the time. However, I do feel that a Leica M is actually the right one for having a different perspective and experience really. I feel digital cameras nowadays are getting closer to each other and regardless the brand, the results of any modern mirrorless camera will be great, then the experience using the camera is my number one reason why I want to try Leica. 

And you’re right, Leica lenses are insanely expensive. I see that as a long term investment, as in collect new stuff year by year, otherwise I’ll get a divorce 😂

[Ray Vonn]

In terms of image output, all current FF EVF mirrorless cameras are great in handling and quality of images and essentially do the same thing, attempting to separate the SL line from the others via the "experience" seems to be a long bow drawn.  Unless you really want the badge and are happy to pay for it in which case by all means, go ahead.  But in practical terms there will be no discernible difference in use/ output and from my experience, Leica and all other adapted lenses work fantastically well on the Z line of cameras.  The native S line lenses in combination with the Z cameras can't be bettered on a technical 'pixel peeping' basis either and I'm sure it's the same with other current FF EVF vendors too.  This is not to say that the SL line is 'bad', far from it, it's just that any EVF FF mirrorless camera will practically do the same; with this type of camera we are talking about very clever advanced technology where like it or not, a super image is arguably as much down to the machine being used as much as the shooter. Where this is not the case, as indicated by others in this thread, is with a rangefinder M.

[LocalHero1953]

 

29 minutes ago, Ray Vonn said:

a super image is arguably as much down to the machine being used as much as the shooter.

I suspect we are looking for different things in a photograph!

If I was buying cameras on the basis of their technically-defined output of resolution, sharpness and colour, my life would have been very simple, and I would have spent less (and I wouldn't be on this forum).

But I also buy cameras and lenses on how easy they are to use, and how easy they make it to get the results I want. IMO those differences between different cameras, and camera brands, are easily big enough to make me pick one over another. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, Ray Vonn said:

In terms of image output, all current FF EVF mirrorless cameras are great in handling and quality of images and essentially do the same thing, attempting to separate the SL line from the others via the "experience" seems to be a long bow drawn.  Unless you really want the badge and are happy to pay for it in which case by all means, go ahead.  But in practical terms there will be no discernible difference in use/ output and from my experience, Leica and all other adapted lenses work fantastically well on the Z line of cameras. The native S line lenses in combination with the Z cameras can't be bettered on a technical 'pixel peeping' basis either and I'm sure it's the same with other current FF EVF vendors too.  This is not to say that the SL line is 'bad', far from it, it's just that any EVF FF mirrorless camera will practically do the same; with this type of camera we are talking about very clever advanced technology where like it or not, a super image is arguably as much down to the machine being used as much as the shooter.

 

I get what you are saying, and I have no issue with your preference for Nikon's current mirrorless cameras. However, there are logical issues with your argument.

If all cameras are basically the same, wouldn't that argue for choosing the one with the better interface? Or at least the interface that you prefer?

From my own POV, Z-line cameras are more expensive (their high-end isn't cheap and their low-end isn't as good as Sigma and Panasonic), less pleasant to use, have less pleasing colour by default, have a smaller selection of lenses, have lower quality lenses (except for a few showcase nikkors), have barely any video industry support.

I don't disagree that the photographer is the biggest factor, but we aren't cameras choosing a photographer; we are photographers choosing a camera! That's like the old cliche that (your favourite musician) sounds better on a cheap instrument than you do on a great instrument. That may be, but in almost all cases, (your favourite musician) will choose the great instrument!

[Knipsknecht]

vor 23 Minuten schrieb BernardC:

 

If all cameras are basically the same, wouldn't that argue for choosing the one with the better interface? Or at least the interface that you prefer?

... or the one with the better price, or the one with the physically smaller/ individually better fitting lens selection, or the one with the "better" color science? The interface could be "one" distinctive feature, but not necessary the only one - even if most modern DSLMs are basically (!) the same (and become more and more similar).

From my own POV, Z-line cameras are more expensive (their high-end isn't cheap and their low-end isn't as good as Sigma and Panasonic), less pleasant to use, have less pleasing colour by default, have a smaller selection of lenses, have lower quality lenses (except for a few showcase nikkors), have barely any video industry support.

... more expensive, less pleasant etc. than what?

I don't disagree that the photographer is the biggest factor, but we aren't cameras choosing a photographer; we are photographers choosing a camera! That's like the old cliche that (your favourite musician) sounds better on a cheap instrument than you do on a great instrument. That may be, but in almost all cases, (your favourite musician) will choose the great instrument!

... probably the favourite musician chooses the instrument he/she can afford and that does the job😉

 

[BernardC]

14 minutes ago, Knipsknecht said:

The interface could be "one" distinctive feature, but not necessary the only one - even if most modern DSLMs are basically (!) the same (and become more and more similar).

That's the point. If you find them all technically the same, the interface becomes a deciding factor. It's the old iOS vs. Android thing: pick the one you prefer, unless there is a must-have feature that isn't available on your preferred platform.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Ray Vonn]

58 minutes ago, BernardC said:

 

I get what you are saying, and I have no issue with your preference for Nikon's current mirrorless cameras. However, there are logical issues with your argument.

If all cameras are basically the same, wouldn't that argue for choosing the one with the better interface? Or at least the interface that you prefer?

From my own POV, Z-line cameras are more expensive (their high-end isn't cheap and their low-end isn't as good as Sigma and Panasonic), less pleasant to use, have less pleasing colour by default, have a smaller selection of lenses, have lower quality lenses (except for a few showcase nikkors), have barely any video industry support.

I don't disagree that the photographer is the biggest factor, but we aren't cameras choosing a photographer; we are photographers choosing a camera! That's like the old cliche that (your favourite musician) sounds better on a cheap instrument than you do on a great instrument. That may be, but in almost all cases, (your favourite musician) will choose the great instrument!

Hi,

I wouldn't say I have a preference for Nikon's current mirrorless cameras, I happen to own one but tbh I'd be happy with any of the current Canon/Panasonic/Leica EVF mirrorless offerings.  Obviously you wouldn't and of course that's fine but to me the quality in output these days is very good whatever one of these systems we own.  And I don't have an argument, just merely expressing an opinion in relation to the OP's query.  If one has a preference for a particular interface over another then yes, that's something to consider.  But I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about image output, which is something to consider if one is thinking about going from a Z6 to a SL.  By way of background;  my primary interest is in RF photography, EVF Mirrorless is secondary, perhaps if it was primary I'd be more passionate about this.

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by Ray Vonn