SL2-S vs Leica Q3?

[nemendes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

 

A reminder of what your original question was.

No one is angry. No one is telling you off. Cool down a bit. Some of those replying (including me) just have a different point of view and don't understand how the Q and the SL can easily be compared. But perhaps we have something to learn as well. A different point of view does not mean angry, nor does it imply holy knowledge.

Thank you for the info that you want the camera for street photography. You did not write this in your original post. You asked for advice on which camera we would choose, you did not ask how we used the different cameras.

I use my Q2 for social, family and travel, and for a small camera to put in my bag when I'm doing something else. I use the SL2-S for portraits, events and theatre/musical performances. I find it much too heavy for the street.

Just my opinion.

I am always open to different opinions, thats why i asked yours to understand better. In my opinion, cropping is not giving you same results, maybe for you close or acceptable but from my experience it just not. Maybe it is better with leica q3, thats i would like to know. 

sorry being a little bit furious, but I think it's better for someone not to ask why the question is being asked. Even its a silly question for you. 

[nemendes]

10 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Your opinion is unfortunately contrary to all geometrical ands photographic facts. You are not alone but there are dozens of threads on the forum explaining this. 
Nobody is angry, last of all me, but it gets really wearysome to have to explain this photography 1.1 over and over again. 

You dont have to explain anything to anyone. You could have ignored the title instead of saying unkind words to me. Its not an excuse. 

[Chris W]

21 minutes ago, nemendes said:

Is there any rule that i cant compare these two cameras?

No, but they are so different it makes comparison a bit wasted.

I have had a Q and an SL. I own neither now.

The Q (or Q3) is a high quality camera that is incredibly easy to use, very easy to carry around. I took my Q on foreign trips, had no problem carrying on my shoulder every day and came back with nice images that were high quality (sharpness and colour). 

The SL was an experiment for me and failed. I found it big and heavy, not very ergonomic to hold. Carrying it around I soon got fed up and often left it at home. The Leica L mount lenses are big and expensive. Sigma lenses (which I own) are much ore affordable, good quality and quite small.

There is a case for both Q3 and SL2-S. The Q3 is an easy, everyday camera that produces high quality files. The SL2-S I would suggest is a camera for more deliberate photography, when you are working more slowly with a goal in mind (portraits etc). 

I currently own a Sigma FP and Hasselblad X1D2.

[jaapv]

1 minute ago, nemendes said:

You dont have to explain anything to anyone. You could have ignored the title instead of saying unkind words to me. Its not an excuse. 

Well, call it trying to dispel a ubiquitous photographic misconception then. 

[Chris W]

1 minute ago, nemendes said:

You dont have to explain anything to anyone. 

he's talking about the difference between cropping the Q2/Q3 and using a dedicated 50mm lens - which has in fact been discussed, debated multiple times on the forum, in fact even this week on the Q forum here. So I get his exasperation and you really were stating something that has been pretty comprehensively debunked multiple times.

[nemendes]

18 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Why don't you get a S5II and Sigma lenses? Smaller, lighter, and sharper than the Panasonic rebadge.

Should a smaller SL3 body appear sometime in the future, you can always upgrade, and keep using the lenses.

Also, send an email to Leica and ask them for a Q with a 50mm lens. The more people ask for it, the higher the chances it will happen.

Thank you for your advice. I didnt think about S5II at all, but it could be better. I just wanted to stay in Leica area because of using it for a long time, thats why i didnt look other options. 

I heard about that people asks for Q with a 50mm lens too, and it would be great in my opinion. If cropping would be giving same results, why other people wants that 50mm right? 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, Chris W said:

No, but they are so different it makes comparison a bit wasted.

I have had a Q and an SL. I own neither now.

The Q (or Q3) is a high quality camera that is incredibly easy to use, very easy to carry around. I took my Q on foreign trips, had no problem carrying on my shoulder every day and came back with nice images that were high quality (sharpness and colour). 

The SL was an experiment for me and failed. I found it big and heavy, not very ergonomic to hold. Carrying it around I soon got fed up and often left it at home. The Leica L mount lenses are big and expensive. Sigma lenses (which I own) are much ore affordable, good quality and quite small.

There is a case for both Q3 and SL2-S. The Q3 is an easy, everyday camera that produces high quality files. The SL2-S I would suggest is a camera for more deliberate photography, when you are working more slowly with a goal in mind (portraits etc). 

I currently own a Sigma FP and Hasselblad X1D2.

And a camera with a far wider use envelope. Like telezooms, shift lenses, etc. 

[nemendes]

2 minutes ago, Chris W said:

he's talking about the difference between cropping the Q2/Q3 and using a dedicated 50mm lens - which has in fact been discussed, debated multiple times on the forum, in fact even this week on the Q forum here. So I get his exasperation and you really were stating something that has been pretty comprehensively debunked multiple times.

If he would explain this situation like this, there wouldnt be any problem. Its very normal that i could miss something. But we have to be careful about our words when we are doing it right? I think you would be furious, if someone replied to you in same way. 

[jaapv]

1 minute ago, nemendes said:

Thank you for your advice. I didnt think about S5II at all, but it could be better. I just wanted to stay in Leica area because of using it for a long time, thats why i didnt look other options. 

I heard about that people asks for Q with a 50mm lens too, and it would be great in my opinion. If cropping would be giving same results, why other people wants that 50mm right? 

Because they can move further out and get the perspective they want on the full sensor surface. In the days of low resolution sensors and film that made a difference. Now the high resolution sensors have made cropping photography possible. The Q is built to that concept. 

[nemendes]

9 minutes ago, Chris W said:

No, but they are so different it makes comparison a bit wasted.

I have had a Q and an SL. I own neither now.

The Q (or Q3) is a high quality camera that is incredibly easy to use, very easy to carry around. I took my Q on foreign trips, had no problem carrying on my shoulder every day and came back with nice images that were high quality (sharpness and colour). 

The SL was an experiment for me and failed. I found it big and heavy, not very ergonomic to hold. Carrying it around I soon got fed up and often left it at home. The Leica L mount lenses are big and expensive. Sigma lenses (which I own) are much ore affordable, good quality and quite small.

There is a case for both Q3 and SL2-S. The Q3 is an easy, everyday camera that produces high quality files. The SL2-S I would suggest is a camera for more deliberate photography, when you are working more slowly with a goal in mind (portraits etc). 

I currently own a Sigma FP and Hasselblad X1D2.

Thank you for your advice. Even if with sigma lenses, SL2-S was heavy to carry around? 

[T25UFO]

6 minutes ago, nemendes said:

In my opinion, cropping is not giving you same results

There are many, many examples of excellent portraits taken on Q cameras, some at full 28mm, but a lot cropped to 50mm or greater.  

Look at the work of @Sohail or better still, buy his book The Spirit Of Sahiwal.  The limitation is not the focal length of the lens, but rather the ability of the photographer.

[Simone_DF]

2 minutes ago, nemendes said:

Thank you for your advice. I didnt think about S5II at all, but it could be better. I just wanted to stay in Leica area because of using it for a long time, thats why i didnt look other options. 

I heard about that people asks for Q with a 50mm lens too, and it would be great in my opinion. If cropping would be giving same results, why other people wants that 50mm right? 

At the moment there are no valid options for a 50mm + autofocus camera that is also small and light in Leicaland.

Cropping: I mainly shoot with a 50mm, and buying a full frame camera to end up with the image size of a smartphone is plain dumb, in my opinion. It's ok to crop as a last resort, it's not to crop all the time. Buy a 50mm lens. Would you crop all the time with your M11 and 28mm Ultron? No, I don't think so.

Besides, the DOF equivalent of the Q3 crop is about f3.5. I would prefer to have the option of a more smooth and pleasing bokeh (f2 or wider)  

[Simone_DF]

2 minutes ago, nemendes said:

Thank you for your advice. Even if with sigma lenses, SL2-S was heavy to carry around? 

Yes. You're still carrying over 1kg of gear.

But better than the dumbell-sized Apo Summicrons. 

[nemendes]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

Because they can move further out and get the perspective they want on the full sensor surface. In the days of low resolution sensors and film that made a difference. Now the high resolution sensors have made cropping photography possible. The Q is built to that concept. 

Ok, what about distortion? I didnt want to use crop mode because when i used it before, it had 28 distortion on 50mm fov. Maybe it was because of lens or because of having not much mp, but i didnt get usable results before.

As i said before, i am only using 28mm and 50mm. do you think i wouldnt happier if i could use only one lens for both of them? I didnt try leica q3, maybe its way better for cropping choice and thats why i would like to be hear from you, your opinions. 

[Simone_DF]

2 minutes ago, T25UFO said:

There are many, many examples of excellent portraits taken on Q cameras, some at full 28mm, but a lot cropped to 50mm or greater.  

Look at the work of @Sohail or better still, buy his book The Spirit Of Sahiwal.  The limitation is not the focal length of the lens, but rather the ability of the photographer.

I reckon his shots are with the SL2 and the Summilux, rather than the Q?

[jaapv]

5 minutes ago, nemendes said:

Thank you for your advice. I didnt think about S5II at all, but it could be better. I just wanted to stay in Leica area because of using it for a long time, thats why i didnt look other options. 

I heard about that people asks for Q with a 50mm lens too, and it would be great in my opinion. If cropping would be giving same results, why other people wants that 50mm right? 

I have an S5. I use it for technologically advanced features like post-focus, pre-release, focus stacking and DOF manipulation in the camera. For daily photography I spend more time figuring out the buttons and settings than taking photographs. 

[nemendes]

3 minutes ago, T25UFO said:

There are many, many examples of excellent portraits taken on Q cameras, some at full 28mm, but a lot cropped to 50mm or greater.  

Look at the work of @Sohail or better still, buy his book The Spirit Of Sahiwal.  The limitation is not the focal length of the lens, but rather the ability of the photographer.

I will check it definitely, thank you.

[jaapv]

6 minutes ago, nemendes said:

Ok, what about distortion? I didnt want to use crop mode because when i used it before, it had 28 distortion on 50mm fov. Maybe it was because of lens or because of having not much mp, but i didnt get usable results before.

As i said before, i am only using 28mm and 50mm. do you think i wouldnt happier if i could use only one lens for both of them? I didnt try leica q3, maybe its way better for cropping choice and thats why i would like to be hear from you, your opinions. 

It is not distortion but skewed perspective. The lens sees what it sees. Which means that you will need more or less centric compositions which is usual for portraits. For that reason Leica provides frame lines. 

[Chris W]

7 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

At the moment there are no valid options for a 50mm + autofocus camera that is also small and light in Leicaland.

 

There is the CL, which is still quite easy to find. I'm using a Sigma FP and would add an FP-L if I could justify the expense. It is small, light, produces fantastic images with L mount alliance lenses (Sigma, Leica, Panasonic etc).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chris W]

10 minutes ago, nemendes said:

Even if with sigma lenses, SL2-S was heavy to carry around? 

I just found it bulky and less ergonomic. I ended up with the Hasselblad medium format and a 45p lens (35mm equivalent), which in my opinion is easier to carry all day than the SL Series.