From an Sony a7S to a Leica SL

[Apparitus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know this is GAS, but hear me out. Recently, I started to get more and more dissatisfied with the colors of my a7S. This is further increased by the notorius "star eater" on bulb exposures. So I enbarked on a quest to find an upgrade. By the influence of the chaos gods, I came across the Leica SL, with their used prices, and something immediately clicked in me. I mostly shoot only as a hobby for my hiking, wild camping adventures, low light scenery and some wide angle astrophotography. I do not shoot video at all. On the other hand, the camera never let me down. I do not babysit my a7S, as I'm somewhat clumsy.

One of my reasons I started to dislike the colors is actually the post processing part. Something is always off, too much control, and after 6 years of usage, I got tired of it. Another thing is... I'm shooting with a a 6x6 TLR for few months now. The simplicity of that camera is amazing, always ready, fabulous images, no fancyness and endless menus. I like that. If I ever upgrade, I want to transfer this feeling.

Some of the advantages of the Leica SL are:
-- COLORS!!! Megaparsecs ahead of the Sony a7S. The colors look natural, the gradients are smooth. No weird color casts.
-- 24 MPix is a definite upgrade.
-- Simple usage, simple menus. Even scrolling through the manual, this looks half as complicated than any Sony camera. That's a big plus, see the paragraph above.
-- Low-light performance I've seen in the SL image thread, in the ISO 3200--6400 range seems acceptable to me.
-- A single battery probably lasts longer than these tiny Sony batteries. I currently live on four on a three day undemanding trip in the woods.

Some disadvantages are:
-- Mandatory LENR. That is a definite downgrade. Probably there are workaround techniques, like single exposure star trails. On a tracker, this is not really an issue. Still, better than the star eater.
-- No USB charging. This is quite unfortunate, but probably can be mitigated somewhat by the Nitecore charger.
-- Not quite as "pocketable" as the a7S, and it's twice as heavy. Maybe it's a worthy tradeoff.
-- If I remember corrently, the camera won't do burst shots if the battery level is <=50%. I rarely do such memory card eating madness, so I'm fine with that. (Note the SL's manual carefully silent about this, just like with LENR.) I have to add, it is twice as fast.

Some questions are:
-- How sturdy is the camera? As I said, the a7S fares well in this regard, the weather sealing is OK for my usage -- except torrenting rain --, and handles accidental bumps as well.
-- How does it handle cold weather? The a7S has no problem with that, but as expected, the biggest issue here is the battery.
-- How about the autofocus? The a7S is really unreliable, even on quick landscape shots, where everything is stationery. With my 16-35 GM, the shots have a 50% chance to be in focus, or not. With my 100-400 GM, it's somewhat better, probably due to the shallower depth of field. But I've seen a YouTube video, where the presenter talks about his settings and their usage. Some of those are difficult with the a7S.
-- Strictly looking at the various measurements, the dynamic range of the SL is less. But how so in real life situations?

Does this make any sense? Is it worth "upgrading" to the Leica SL, by selling all the Sony equipment, ending the "marriage"? Or just replace it with a newer Sony body and call it a day?

[jaapv]

How sturdy? How big is the nail you want to hammer with it?  AF is reliable, maybe not as lightning fast as some other cameras. Forget focus tracking. As for DR, nice to have the latest and bestest and biggest. However, I still shoot M9 and M9M with their CCD sensors. I have never felt the need for a larger DR (or for more MP for that matter) Just expose properly. You won't be able to get those large Dynamic Ranges into a print anyway.

[LD_50]

The SL is sturdy with reliable weather sealing. 

I don’t understand the AF issues you’re having with the Sony. That sounds like lack of familiarity, user error, or a defect. AFs is reliable as any other CDAF system with the SL. AFc is not competitive with PDAF systems. 

I would be selecting a system based upon lenses and where the UI is heading rather than on the most out of date body. I prefer Leica over Sony in this regard. 

[pgk]

2 hours ago, Apparitus said:

I know this is GAS, but hear me out.

Does this make any sense? Is it worth "upgrading" to the Leica SL, by selling all the Sony equipment, ending the "marriage"? Or just replace it with a newer Sony body and call it a day?

Ummmm. I've had both and ended up keeping the Sony. I also have an M system. In all honesty you will change one set of advantages and disadvantages with another. The SL feels sturdier but is bigger and heavier. You also need to consider lenses, their availability and how the fit your requirements. I don't buy into the colours thing I'm afraid having used both.

[Robert E]

Quote

I don't buy into the colours thing I'm afraid having used both.

Oh come on guys, everyone knows Sony has poor colors! I've used the A7r3, A7r4, A9ii and they all had off colors, especially the greens. The Leica Sl and Sl2 blows away the Sony colors; being far more true to color than any Sony I ever used. 😀

[Photoworks]

I suppose some people pick Lr as an editing solution and often have difficulty getting the color they want.

I use a different Application and shoot SL2 and a7r 2-3-4 side by side in photos and the color can be made exactly the same in C1P

Not sure why you would get a a7s unless you are doing video, for photos it is ok but nothing special.

On the video side, the Sl2 and SL2-s blow the video color editing option out of the water to most sony cameras that insist on using 8bit recording

[JohnathanLovm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How sturdy? Well it’s somehow saved war journalist from RPG https://www.thephoblographer.com/2019/02/21/these-leicas-apparently-saved-photojournalist-gabriele-micalizzis-life/

how autofocus? Better than Sony A7 gen 1 and feel like Nikon DF/ D600 level of autofocus.

Dynamic range should be similar in real world situations at least to my eyes.

[davidmknoble]

Not only weather sturdy, I've shot it on the coast in 40+mph winds the morning after a hurricane.  Even better, there is a handgrip attachment that holds a second battery, so battery life can be doubled.  Don't have experience with the Sony, but have shot in weather as low as 25 degrees and in torrential rain.  Still have it....

[Apparitus]

Thank you guys for the replies so far!  The overwhelming response about sturdiness is quite reassuring.

I have to address a few questions raised here. I'm no alien to color correcting, as I have worked as a professional image editor for several years. Color correcting was part of my job (and still it is), so I understand the importance of a properly calibrated display, color profiles and management. We had to color correct almost all kinds of images for print, like eg. fixing skin tones to certain L*a*b values through a whole 100+ page magazine. At home I use C1P. It has some nice set of tools, but as I stated, color correcting is started to feel like work. I'm also aware of the Cobalt Image profiles, but I'm not sure how it will fix the weird casts, and gradients.

I have the a7S for six years. I've got it because of the low light capabilities -- it was the "king of the low light" back then. It is still great in that regard. I've tried almost all combinations of AF modes in various environments (concerts, sport events, landscape, hiking, etc), and that is my conclusion of it. 

On 3/29/2023 at 1:37 AM, JohnathanLovm said:

how autofocus? Better than Sony A7 gen 1 and feel like Nikon DF/ D600 level of autofocus.

Then it is already a big improvement than the current one.

 

On 3/28/2023 at 7:21 PM, pgk said:

Ummmm. I've had both and ended up keeping the Sony. I also have an M system. In all honesty you will change one set of advantages and disadvantages with another. The SL feels sturdier but is bigger and heavier. You also need to consider lenses, their availability and how the fit your requirements. I don't buy into the colours thing I'm afraid having used both.

You are right, and have some very valid points, especially the highlighted one, and this is why I'm so reluctant to change. I guess I should try the body first at the local Leica store, there is one on display, whether I like the size and handling or not*, before I do anything. Hope they won't chase me away with a broom...

*A few months ago I met a wild camping guy who wanted to photograph food with a Fuji GFX100S. As we talked a lot about photography, he let me try his camera. Well, it was a bit too big for my preference.

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, Apparitus said:

 I'm no alien to color correcting, as I have worked as a professional image editor for several years.

From that perspective, the Leica will be an upgrade to the Sony. However, I'd wait until a used SL2-S is in your budget. It's the better SL, being DR, sensitivity and, most importantly, IBIS, its most significant advantages, which are worth the money by a large margin.

Sony bodies fall into the 3/4 size category regarding size and ergonomics, while the SL bodies are full-sized. With medium-sized hands, the pinky finds a comfortable place and adds to the ergonomics considerably. Many photographers find smaller and lighter bodies better, but I don't because the higher heft and larger size help to focus better on the subject and composition - if that makes sense.

 

[davidmknoble]

2 hours ago, hansvons said:

From that perspective, the Leica will be an upgrade to the Sony. However, I'd wait until a used SL2-S is in your budget. It's the better SL, being DR, sensitivity and, most importantly, IBIS, its most significant advantages, which are worth the money by a large margin.

Sony bodies fall into the 3/4 size category regarding size and ergonomics, while the SL bodies are full-sized. With medium-sized hands, the pinky finds a comfortable place and adds to the ergonomics considerably. Many photographers find smaller and lighter bodies better, but I don't because the higher heft and larger size help to focus better on the subject and composition - if that makes sense.

 

I would add to this that I've seen stellar images from both systems and exposure and editing create the end result.  All sensors and weather sealing aside, I think controls are another important point of thought.  In the film world, even souped up cameras had only a few controls.  Digital cameras started coming with airplane cockpits.  Leica has maintained a more simplistic control system with menus.  The SL2/SL2S system has added more functional custom buttons, so if you are a button / control freak, the Leica system may frustrate you.  Personally, I hate having so many buttons I never use.  If I need something I don't use often, I don't mind a menu.  I really just want to change key pieces - ISO, meter method and sometimes WB.  Other than that it's f/stop and shutter speed.

Otherwise, the SL2-S is a little more than a full stop ahead of the SL2 in light and the high ISO's are the best I've seen.  If you want the highest dynamic range that Leica has to offer, it's still the S3 (with the M11 coming close).  But, for high ISO performance, I think the SL2-S may have it.  IMHO.

[LD_50]

2 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

All sensors and weather sealing aside, I think controls are another important point of thought.  In the film world, even souped up cameras had only a few controls.  Digital cameras started coming with airplane cockpits.  Leica has maintained a more simplistic control system with menus.  The SL2/SL2S system has added more functional custom buttons, so if you are a button / control freak, the Leica system may frustrate you.  Personally, I hate having so many buttons I never use.  If I need something I don't use often, I don't mind a menu.  I really just want to change key pieces - ISO, meter method and sometimes WB.  Other than that it's f/stop and shutter speed.

Have you seen a Nikon F4,5,6? Equivalent cameras from other manufacturers were similar. I didn’t see a lot of change when they went digital. 

A well designed system can work with a lot of buttons or few buttons. Typically fewer buttons coincides with fewer features, though it may mean there is a reliance on menus.

Everything in the Nikon system worked well for me and I didn’t have to use the menus to access the features I needed. The SL system also works well, though it may be more difficult for a new user given the various buttons are multifunction rather than dedicated. I preferred the original SL to the SL2 button layout. 

[davidmknoble]

11 hours ago, LD_50 said:

Have you seen a Nikon F4,5,6? Equivalent cameras from other manufacturers were similar. I didn’t see a lot of change when they went digital. 

A well designed system can work with a lot of buttons or few buttons. Typically fewer buttons coincides with fewer features, though it may mean there is a reliance on menus.

Everything in the Nikon system worked well for me and I didn’t have to use the menus to access the features I needed. The SL system also works well, though it may be more difficult for a new user given the various buttons are multifunction rather than dedicated. I preferred the original SL to the SL2 button layout. 

I have used Nikon F2’s and F3’s for years. Less controls are less to break. Spending time looking fir buttons takes away from the process. Digital cameras today have too many buttons IMHO

[LD_50]

2 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

I have used Nikon F2’s and F3’s for years. Less controls are less to break. Spending time looking fir buttons takes away from the process. Digital cameras today have too many buttons IMHO

My point was that modern film cameras with advanced AF and drive modes had the same basic button setup as digitals. 

[davidmknoble]

5 hours ago, LD_50 said:

My point was that modern film cameras with advanced AF and drive modes had the same basic button setup as digitals. 

I agree.  The film cameras that require batteries to drive everything, not just the meter, have a lot of buttons and some of the same branded digitals, which I believe makes photography more difficult, not easier.  Good comparison.

[csg]

I have the Sony A7RIII and I recently purchased a  Leica SL2 with the 24-90 lens. I'm in the middle of comparing the two for my own uses. I'm a casual photographer, but I do shot in the mountains (climbing and backpacking) and I travel so size and weight is always a concern for me. I mostly do landscapes. I just finished a trip to Thailand where I took the SL2 with a fixed focal lens, the M 35mm Summicron. I'm still undecided on which to keep (I can only afford to keep one) but a few thoughts I've had so far:

1. The photos on the Leica seem superior to the Sony. The color, micro contrast, and just overall texture are more pleasing to me right out of the box. I could of course achieve the same look with a little post processing of my Sony images, but I didn't seem to need to do much post processing with the photos from the Leica. Especially the portraits. I'm very pleased with those.

2. I struggled with the manual focus of the M lens on the SL2. I've owned Leica M cameras for many years so I'm very used to the M lenses, and the SL2 system is intuitive and I was sure it was going to easy, but somehow I struggled...probably because the setup is still new to me. The result is that I missed some shots which would've been keepers due to them being slightly out of focus.

3. The weight and size of the Leica compared to the Sony (even with only the 35mm M lens) was very noticeable over the course of a long day. I'm going on an extended hut-to-hut trip in the Dolomites with some big mile days and I'm hesitant to take the Leica. Which says volumes.

4. Weather sealing of the Leica is very appealing to me; there's several times when I've hesitated to use the Sony due to poor weather and I missed some good opportunities. Maybe the Sony would've been ok, but I didn't want to risk it. On the other hand, I'm comfortable taking the Leica out in any weather. This is important to me as I do shot in the mountains where the weather is not always great.

So far I prefer the images of the Leica and of course the menu system is far superior to the Sony which does make the Leica a joy to use. But I'm mindful of the adage that the best camera is the one you have with you and I'm concerned I may leave the Leica behind due to its size and weight. So far I'm on the fence. As many on this thread have observed, both are great cameras but every dog has its fleas. Of course, this is all my own subjective experience based on my personal preferences and needs!!

[LBJ2]

2 hours ago, csg said:

I have the Sony A7RIII and I recently purchased a  Leica SL2 with the 24-90 lens. I'm in the middle of comparing the two for my own uses. I'm a casual photographer, but I do shot in the mountains (climbing and backpacking) and I travel so size and weight is always a concern for me. I mostly do landscapes. I just finished a trip to Thailand where I took the SL2 with a fixed focal lens, the M 35mm Summicron. I'm still undecided on which to keep (I can only afford to keep one) but a few thoughts I've had so far:

1. The photos on the Leica seem superior to the Sony. The color, micro contrast, and just overall texture are more pleasing to me right out of the box. I could of course achieve the same look with a little post processing of my Sony images, but I didn't seem to need to do much post processing with the photos from the Leica. Especially the portraits. I'm very pleased with those.

2. I struggled with the manual focus of the M lens on the SL2. I've owned Leica M cameras for many years so I'm very used to the M lenses, and the SL2 system is intuitive and I was sure it was going to easy, but somehow I struggled...probably because the setup is still new to me. The result is that I missed some shots which would've been keepers due to them being slightly out of focus.

3. The weight and size of the Leica compared to the Sony (even with only the 35mm M lens) was very noticeable over the course of a long day. I'm going on an extended hut-to-hut trip in the Dolomites with some big mile days and I'm hesitant to take the Leica. Which says volumes.

4. Weather sealing of the Leica is very appealing to me; there's several times when I've hesitated to use the Sony due to poor weather and I missed some good opportunities. Maybe the Sony would've been ok, but I didn't want to risk it. On the other hand, I'm comfortable taking the Leica out in any weather. This is important to me as I do shot in the mountains where the weather is not always great.

So far I prefer the images of the Leica and of course the menu system is far superior to the Sony which does make the Leica a joy to use. But I'm mindful of the adage that the best camera is the one you have with you and I'm concerned I may leave the Leica behind due to its size and weight. So far I'm on the fence. As many on this thread have observed, both are great cameras but every dog has its fleas. Of course, this is all my own subjective experience based on my personal preferences and needs!!

To keep your Leica preference more viable/enjoyable, maybe try the new smaller and lighter weight 35/2 and 50/2 ASPH SL lens kit for travel and longer day trips instead. More light and much less burden. You can also throw the SL2 into crop mode to get a bit more distance with the 50.

 

[Jon Warwick]

On 3/31/2023 at 8:31 AM, Apparitus said:

You are right, and have some very valid points, especially the highlighted one, and this is why I'm so reluctant to change. I guess I should try the body first at the local Leica store, there is one on display, whether I like the size and handling or not*, before I do anything. Hope they won't chase me away with a broom...

*A few months ago I met a wild camping guy who wanted to photograph food with a Fuji GFX100S. As we talked a lot about photography, he let me try his camera. Well, it was a bit too big for my preference.

I have the GFX100S - paired with its small 50mm lens, it feels light compared to the SL2 and SL APO Summicron that I used to own! So if you thought the GFX is big, you might want to handle the SL to see if it’s too big too.

An M camera is considerably lighter still (the newer black M11 especially) and notably  smaller than either the GFX or SL, I assume you’ve ruled out the M series due to lack of weather sealing? I’ve used the Ms in the mountains a lot, mainly around Chamonix (even in driving snow at times). The system simply fees more compact, on my numbers everything (body weight, lenses) are about half the weight of the equivalent of an SL ….albeit to LBJ2’s point, we now have the newer and lighter SL ASPH lenses to help. But I’ve noticed my “behaviour”, and it’s occasionally apparent I have left the SL or GFX at home because I’ve decided I can’t be bothered carrying them, but I’ve typically never found an excuse not to throw an M (in the Leica neoprene case) into a bag to accompany me.

[wdshuck]

18 hours ago, csg said:

I have the Sony A7RIII and I recently purchased a  Leica SL2 with the 24-90 lens. I'm in the middle of comparing the two for my own uses. I'm a casual photographer, but I do shot in the mountains (climbing and backpacking) and I travel so size and weight is always a concern for me. I mostly do landscapes. I just finished a trip to Thailand where I took the SL2 with a fixed focal lens, the M 35mm Summicron. I'm still undecided on which to keep (I can only afford to keep one) but a few thoughts I've had so far:

1. The photos on the Leica seem superior to the Sony. The color, micro contrast, and just overall texture are more pleasing to me right out of the box. I could of course achieve the same look with a little post processing of my Sony images, but I didn't seem to need to do much post processing with the photos from the Leica. Especially the portraits. I'm very pleased with those.

2. I struggled with the manual focus of the M lens on the SL2. I've owned Leica M cameras for many years so I'm very used to the M lenses, and the SL2 system is intuitive and I was sure it was going to easy, but somehow I struggled...probably because the setup is still new to me. The result is that I missed some shots which would've been keepers due to them being slightly out of focus.

3. The weight and size of the Leica compared to the Sony (even with only the 35mm M lens) was very noticeable over the course of a long day. I'm going on an extended hut-to-hut trip in the Dolomites with some big mile days and I'm hesitant to take the Leica. Which says volumes.

4. Weather sealing of the Leica is very appealing to me; there's several times when I've hesitated to use the Sony due to poor weather and I missed some good opportunities. Maybe the Sony would've been ok, but I didn't want to risk it. On the other hand, I'm comfortable taking the Leica out in any weather. This is important to me as I do shot in the mountains where the weather is not always great.

So far I prefer the images of the Leica and of course the menu system is far superior to the Sony which does make the Leica a joy to use. But I'm mindful of the adage that the best camera is the one you have with you and I'm concerned I may leave the Leica behind due to its size and weight. So far I'm on the fence. As many on this thread have observed, both are great cameras but every dog has its fleas. Of course, this is all my own subjective experience based on my personal preferences and needs!!

I switched from an A7RIV with mostly Zeiss primes to an SL2S with the 24-70 to complement my M10. I got tired of fighting the colors on the Sony as well. I was able to get a similar look previously, but it took much more effort editing. I do miss the lens selection and the AFC speed, but am generally happy with the switch. I’m hoping the new SL primes fill the same niche by Zeiss lenses filled. The APOs are amazing but a little overkill for my purposes. 
 

Separately, I’ve found manually focusing my M lenses actually faster/ easier on the M10 than the SL2S. The viewfinder on the SL2S is definitely better than the Sony, but the RF is faster to focus for me - unless I need critical focus on landscapes.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[csg]

@LBJ2 Thanks for the suggestion on the primes. I'm considering those right now! The 35mm is not wide enough, but I could stitch pano shots together in C1. I'm also going to try the 24-70 which will be lighter and do most of what I want/need.

@wdshuck I'm pleased to hear that you're generally happy with the switch. So you're pleased with the 24-70? And agreed on the new SL primes; will take a look.

Edited April 3, 2023 by csg