Another help me choose between SL2 and SL2-S

[MapleSyrup]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Long time lurker, first time poster. I am looking to purchase a new Leica SL camera in the next couple weeks to take advantage of their sale and I am left with a few options.

For starters, ill break down my usage and future usage plans.

70% - Product photography. These are all done in studio in controlled lighting and always on a tripod.

25% - Architectural/Landscape/City Photography. Some of this may be done at night, but I'd expect most of it to be done with a tripod. Cityscapes, perhaps some street photography.

5% - Family photos. I have a newborn and I'd love to use this to capture their moments.

 

Next I'll break down the advantages/disadvantages from my perspective and if I am missing something or something else is wrong, please feel free to correct me.

SL2 Advantages over the SL2-S

47.3 MP - Allows me for more crop and with higher resolution for photos with travel/studio that I will want to print and use for home framed photos on the wall. Allows for futureproofing in that regard somewhat.

Disadvantages

Price - It is almost $2000 more here to move from the SL2-S

Low light performance - outside of handheld, I'm not sure if this would affect me as I'd most likely be using a tripod

Older - released almost 2 years prior to the SL2-S? The SL3 is on the horizon, however I think that will be out of my price range.

 

SL2-S Advantages over the SL2

BSI sensor - I'm not sure if this will matter a lot to me

Better low light performance

Smaller file size for most photos(if I want to shoot something that will be used for online social media)

Cheaper

Released more recently - 2021 it was available if I remember correctly

Disadvantages

24 MP - While this is a non issue for online photos, I feel it will show it could show its issues to the SL2 if I want to shoot landscape/cityscape and crop.

 

Reading this all back, the two main concerns for me are the SL2 age and cost. Will that larger sensor really benefit me as much as I'm hoping? I wont be printing any 4ft x 6ft photos or anything of that nature, but I do want my photos to have has much clarity and detail as possible(outside of an S3).

 

I welcome all comments and questions as I want to make sure the right decision is made. I am looking to pair it with the 35mm lens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

3 minutes ago, MapleSyrup said:

24 MP - While this is a non issue for online photos, I feel it will show it could show its issues to the SL2 if I want to shoot landscape/cityscape and crop.

Really? You could print a 24 MP image to the size of the Eiffel Tower. There is no printer in the world that can resolve more than 10 MP on A3+

[MapleSyrup]

15 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Really? You could print a 24 MP image to the size of the Eiffel Tower. There is no printer in the world that can resolve more than 10 MP on A3+

Thanks for the reply. Like I said, these are my observations. If I wanted to shoot for example a cityscape shot, but crop on a single building, the higher resolution would allow me more headroom in detail, no? 

Edited March 5, 2023 by MapleSyrup

[ellisson]

If you are concerned about cropping and that is your main concern, get the SL2.  Others use that same logic in buying higher megapixel camera models.  But if your shooting style is more traditional in the sense of pre-visualizing what you want to capture, then a 24 megapixel sensor camera is fine.  To use your example of a single building in a cityscape, you can always return later and move closer or use a longer lens if by some chance you think its worth a closer view.  

[MapleSyrup]

15 minutes ago, ellisson said:

If you are concerned about cropping and that is your main concern, get the SL2.  Others use that same logic in buying higher megapixel camera models.  But if your shooting style is more traditional in the sense of pre-visualizing what you want to capture, then a 24 megapixel sensor camera is fine.  To use your example of a single building in a cityscape, you can always return later and move closer or use a longer lens if by some chance you think its worth a closer view.  

Thanks. That might not have been the best example. Sometimes you can only take a photo from that distance(due to restrictions) with the lens you have, knowing that you'll crop later but still want to maintain that resolution.

 

Other that the low light and price point, is there anything from a release date perspective that they included on the SL2-S over the SL2 that I'm missing?

[Sohail]

I 

14 minutes ago, ellisson said:

If you are concerned about cropping and that is your main concern, get the SL2.  Others use that same logic in buying higher megapixel camera models.  

The right combo for me would be:

Good shot discipline + SL2 + great prime lens. The logic being that you maximise the use of the technology at your disposal.

[wdshuck]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I came from an A7RIV and was similarly torn. I ended up with an SL2S and have not missed the extra MP, however low light performance was a bigger concern for me.

[MapleSyrup]

2 minutes ago, wdshuck said:

I came from an A7RIV and was similarly torn. I ended up with an SL2S and have not missed the extra MP, however low light performance was a bigger concern for me.

Thanks for the reply. I had actually initially looked into the A7R V but with the Leica promotion, I feel I wouldn't have otherwise considered it. For me, the low light would only matter on cityscape/landscape handheld, but I shoot tripod 85%+ of the time.

[MapleSyrup]

Am I missing anything on the SL2/SL2-S differences? Is the lack of BSI on the SL2 that big a deal?

[robb]

I’d just get the SL2 for your work.  
you’ll be very happy and never miss any differences.  
Robb

 

[wdshuck]

5 minutes ago, MapleSyrup said:

Am I missing anything on the SL2/SL2-S differences? Is the lack of BSI on the SL2 that big a deal?

Aside from low light, I believe the other main benefit from BSI is it’s easier to recovery blown highlights.

[LocalHero1953]

SL2-S owner here (though I did have a SL2 first before trading it in). In your shoes, for product and architectural photography I would get the SL2 for the reasons you give. Ignore the fact that the SL2 is older - the SL2S sensor is certainly newer and different, but the SL2 sensor is fine, and I would also want the extra pixels for cropping. If your night shots are with a tripod then you need not worry much about the better low light performance of the SL2S.

My only concern would be your 5%. The SL series is large and heavy, especially with its lenses; fine with a new-born when it is sleeping or has no idea what it is looking at, but scary and intimidating as it gets older. I would want something much smaller. Extend your budget a bit and buy a TL2 with the 60TL lens which has excellent near-macro capabilities (those tiny feet). Why the TL2 over the CL? Because you don't have to cover your face to take the picture, a surprisingly often overlooked aspect of working with small children. 

Edited March 5, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[Photoworks]

SL2 camera is more sensable for the work you are suggesting 

Product photography is  much easier to retouch with actual details, same goes with architectural . People would say SL2s has Muilty shot, But most profuct photography is done using flash, and architectual photography uses LED lights that can flicker , electronic shutter ( what multi shot needs) is limiting.

Electronic shutter only goes to 1 sec exposure.

SL2 is very capable and for most work you shoot below 1600 ISO anyway .

I use 2 SL2 for most of my work, The SL2-s is easier to use in video as the lenses often are not the super fast and avalable light is limited.

So the SL2-s has be benifit on 1-2 stops of noise over SL2, and the sensor been BIS it is a little easier to focus with M lenses. Sl2-s has more issues with MOIRE with architectual and clothing materials.

If you are interested in video in the future, check the two cameras specks becouse the frame rates and option are different.

[MapleSyrup]

19 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

SL2 camera is more sensable for the work you are suggesting 

Product photography is  much easier to retouch with actual details, same goes with architectural . People would say SL2s has Muilty shot, But most profuct photography is done using flash, and architectual photography uses LED lights that can flicker , electronic shutter ( what multi shot needs) is limiting.

Electronic shutter only goes to 1 sec exposure.

SL2 is very capable and for most work you shoot below 1600 ISO anyway .

I use 2 SL2 for most of my work, The SL2-s is easier to use in video as the lenses often are not the super fast and avalable light is limited.

So the SL2-s has be benifit on 1-2 stops of noise over SL2, and the sensor been BIS it is a little easier to focus with M lenses. Sl2-s has more issues with MOIRE with architectual and clothing materials.

If you are interested in video in the future, check the two cameras specks becouse the frame rates and option are different.

Thanks for this. The video aspect is useless to me as I am focusing on buying a photography first camera and don't shoot much video. In the future, I may but nothing serious.

 

The retouching/details is exactly why I just cant stay to get the SL2-S. But is it $2000 better. 

Edited March 5, 2023 by MapleSyrup

[MapleSyrup]

33 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

SL2-S owner here (though I did have a SL2 first before trading it in). In your shoes, for product and architectural photography I would get the SL2 for the reasons you give. Ignore the fact that the SL2 is older - the SL2S sensor is certainly newer and different, but the SL2 sensor is fine, and I would also want the extra pixels for cropping. If your night shots are with a tripod then you need not worry much about the better low light performance of the SL2S.

My only concern would be your 5%. The SL series is large and heavy, especially with its lenses; fine with a new-born when it is sleeping or has no idea what it is looking at, but scary and intimidating as it gets older. I would want something much smaller. Extend your budget a bit and buy a TL2 with the 60TL lens which has excellent near-macro capabilities (those timy feet). Why the TL2 over the CL? Because you don't have to cover your face to take the picture, a surprisingly often overlooked aspect of working with small children. 

In what ways is the SL2-S sensor newer and different? I'm asking from a design standpoint other than the obvious MP/BSI etc. This is what concerns me. When I spend this much, I want to make sure your getting the most from a SL2-SL2S comparative standpoint(I know, Leica isn't about the most features/dollar). I just dont want to short myself and regret not getting the extra MP of the SL2. Unless I'm over concerning myself. Keep in mind, the other 2 cameras I considered that weren't Leica, was the Fuji GFX 50C II and Hassleblad X1D II(lenses are insane $$$) Medium format. 

The 5% is being generous. If anything, it would most likely be less as I wouldn't have it with me all the time. I'm talking more specific portrait photos of kids, like a first day of school or birthday photos as an example. I don't really want to have a second camera.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, MapleSyrup said:

Thanks for the reply. Like I said, these are my observations. If I wanted to shoot for example a cityscape shot, but crop on a single building, the higher resolution would allow me more headroom in detail, no? 

Well, yes, if you plan cropping to a serious extent, the extra resolution will come in handy. (That is the basic principle of the Q2).

[LocalHero1953]

18 minutes ago, MapleSyrup said:

In what ways is the SL2-S sensor newer and different? I'm asking from a design standpoint other than the obvious MP/BSI etc.

I meant newer and different in terms of BSI and MP! I think it is the BSI technology that allows the better low light performance of the SL2S (noise and colour). I have no other technical knowledge to add. In normal light and normal enlargements I noticed no difference between the two (I used both cameras, one after the other after trading one for the other, for a project with similar challenges of colour and fine detail). I didn't choose the SL2S simply because it had the newer sensor; I chose it because I didn't need the extra pixels, and the low light performance was better. At the time (late 2021) that trade was seen as a downgrade; now I think there is enough recognition of the different strengths of each sensor to suggest you pick the one that suits your needs. In your case I would choose the SL2; for my needs, I prefer the SL2S.

[jigesh]

SL2 plus SL prime(s)  would be my preference. For me, ISO6400 is no problem, but everyone is different.  I do DNG via DXO PureRaw before importing to LightRoom/Captue1 Pro.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[RBB]

I have the SL2 and SL2s, when I bought the SL2 I thought 47mp is way to much, but now, I love the resolution, only use the Sl2s at night or an other event when there is almost no light, I prefer the SL2 above the SL2s.

[hansvons]

I don't know how you want to set up your system, but the SL2/S will eventually need a lens or two. The SL2-S will allow more money for the lens sector at a given budget than the SL2. Perhaps a reason to go for the SL2-S, as lenses are arguably more critical than sensors?

(I've shot landscapes, cityscapes and whatnot with the SL2-S and can't find a reason not to use it. It has excellent pixels (DR/colour in the shadows) that roughly resolve to what typically would be a 6x6 medium format film. For me, that's plenty enough. For today's printers as well, at least up to A2).