Lightweight kits for SL/2/3

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nor me - it's my most used lens since I bought it with the SL at launch. I couldn't do without it. 

[Advertisement]

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

[hansvons]

On 7/12/2024 at 11:37 AM, hoolyproductions said:

I think this thread has mainly been some useful GAS therapy for me, sorting out my thoughts. The 24-70 would indeed give me a zoom that weighs no more than an APO summicron (and only a little more than my Sigma 24/Leica 50 combo), but I will resist. I think the most likely outcome would be having then to decide which zoom to take (and defaulting to the 24-90 in most cases).

GAS is evil because it stops you from taking proper photos that are not "test shots".  My advice: sell everything that you didn't use in the last 6 months. Too much equipment puts weight on one's creativity. Creativity is not about choices but frames (literally and figuratively).

---

The SL system is made for rough, professional environments that aren't bird in flight and sports, with a focus on image quality and usability, plus its use in inclement weather conditions. To get all of that, it is advisable to use SL lenses. The 24-90 is the best zoom on the market regarding image quality. For that, you pay a prize besides money: size and weight. That also accounts for the SL APO primes. 

This target group is not particularly large. Canon and Nikon's pro offerings fit a similar bill for professionals but add higher AF performance, making that niche even smaller. Thus, Leica identifies a new target group: older users who own an M system and struggle with eyesight. However, regardless of your lens, the SL will never be a lightweight kit matching an M or Q.

I have the SL2-S and got it with the brilliant 24-90. This is not a carry-around lens for photo walks but a professional assignment lens for jobs that require a zoom. I used it precisely for that, but two years later, I found myself in a new situation and sold it.

Staying in the Leica ecosystem, an M camera is a great lightweight everyday camera in my experience. The only thing is that you cannot use zooms with it.

• What do you dislike about the M11?
• You wrote that you are a 50ies guy.  Why not challenge that and focus on 50mm in your work, dropping the idea of doing everything (and nothing) with a zoom?

 

[hansvons]

On 7/11/2024 at 9:56 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

I have thus been wondering about a M10-R, so as to carry film and digital bodies, and lenses that fit both.

I'm intrigued: why the M10-R? I'm pondering the same idea of getting a digital M since I defaulted to a pair of film Ms two years ago. And I need, at times, a faster turnaround that digital provides. However, I'd prefer the M10 as it adds 1-2 stops of ISO, helping exposure times (no IBIS in an M), and the colour is arguably better. I use almost exclusively 35mm lenses. 

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

I'm intrigued: why the M10-R? I'm pondering the same idea of getting a digital M since I defaulted to a pair of film Ms two years ago. And I need, at times, a faster turnaround that digital provides. However, I'd prefer the M10 as it adds 1-2 stops of ISO, helping exposure times (no IBIS in an M), and the colour is arguably better. I use almost exclusively 35mm lenses. 

All sorts of reasons! Many of which are specific to me and my usage.

• I once had a M240. I didn't upgrade from the M240 to the M10 because of the lack of a totally silent shutter for music recitals, and the lack of video, which I occasionally wanted. So I bought, in succession, the TL2, CL and Q2!
• Since then, I have moved into the SL system (and Blackmagic L-mount), and so have less need for video in my travel/social camera.
• However, it would be handy to have a small video camera for a gimbal: I tried the Sigma fp (poor ergonomics for stills) and the SL2-S (it works on a gimbal but is really too heavy). The Q2/Q3 might be the answer on a gimbal, especially with the Q3's tilt screen.
• Even so, a replacement for the Q2 for travel, casual and social stills may not have to have video, which leads me to the M.
• The freezing problems with the M11 don't worry me - I will trust my luck not to get one that freezes, and will deal with it if it happens. But I dislike the feel and sound of the M11 shutter - it gives the impression of Leica's attempt to modernise the M series, getting to grips with LV and exposure from the EVF, but has not done it very well. Not Das Wesentliche.
• The M10-R appears to have almost as good resolution and image quality as the M11, but with a proper (though quiet) traditional shutter and exposure system.

You can see the inconsistencies in my reasoning - and that is why I haven't come to a decision! How would I get video on a gimbal if I replaced the Q2 with a M10/11? And how would I get a totally silent (small) stills camera for music recitals?

Edited July 15, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[hansvons]

30 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

You can see the inconsistencies in my reasoning - and that is why I haven't come to a decision! 

Haha. That is exactly my sentiment. I follow management rule no. 1: do nothing when in doubt. 

 

32 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

How would I get video on a gimbal if I replaced the Q2 with a M10/11?

Gibals are overrated. Everyone does that, even if there's no storytelling-based motivation behind it. In many cases, a properly handheld camera is, dramatically speaking, the better choice. Gimbals don't make proper dolly tracking obsolete because the story behind the gimbal is about a flying eye while dollying a shot is not about flying. It's solid tracking, a very different storytelling device. Thus, the question of why the camera should fly is often only answered by the dumb answer, "Because it looks cool". BTW, female filmmakers tend to approach filmmaking less technically—usually the better approach.

Seriously, as you own the excellent BM 6KFF and probably use Resolve for editing, why not use Resolve's great stabilisation tool? It works in tandem with your camera (you only have to set the focal length for Resolve to read the EXIF data correctly for stabilisation) and shoot your moves hand-held. It works astonishingly well at 35mm and even longer; you only have to consider a broader framing for the inevitable cropping that comes with stabilisation.

[hoolyproductions]

Thanks hansvons for your thoughts, I agree with pretty much all your observations on the SL cameras. Regarding the M11 and why I am not crazy about it at the moment, a small backstory first 😁 I got an M6 back in 2014 and shot exclusively with film for about a year. It was soon joined by an M240, which was then replaced by an M10, overall about four years shooting exclusively with M cameras. (Before that, like many, I'd had a series of DSLR cameras.) I really enjoyed the experience, felt like I had 're-learned' the essentials of photography.

In 2021 I decided to get an SL2-S for a few reasons, mostly because I was interested to use a WYSIWYG EVF viewfinder, autofocus, IBIS, weather sealing etc. I had intended only to use it for my more 'serious' photography - I do a lot of music/gig photography, often in very low light and at first intended only to get the SL2-S and the 50mm APO, continuing to use the M for more casual stuff. In the end I fell 'head over heels' with the SL system and added the 24-90mm and a couple more primes, all of which I still have and use regularly. My M10 spent nearly two years gathering dust.

In late-2022  I wanted something smaller again (the M10 had been sold to pay for SL lenses) and got a Q2, which I ended up selling for my M11 in late-2023 because I found the 28mm a bit limiting and was not so impressed with some other aspects (EVF compared to SL2 lack of BBF etc). I got on just fine with the M11 for a few months but have hardly used it this year for the following (not particularly good) reasons:

• I often find the sharpness of the M11 to be disappointing. I don't know if this is user error, the lack of IBIS, rangefinder calibration or something else. My SL2-S just seems to do better (same with my SL2, which I have traded in while I wait for an SL3). This seems to be the case with my 28mm Elmarit (I don't find this as sharp/croppable as the Q2 either) and 35mm/50mm Summiluxes (which I sometimes use for music gigs with my SL2-S and have no problem nailing the focus)
• I tend to worry (more than necessary) whether the rangefinder calibration is ok. When I get focus errors working at close distance, wide open, I am never sure if it was me or the rangefinder. Back in 2015 it would take maximum 8 weeks to send to Leica for calibration - nowadays you don't know how long you would have to wait.
• My eyes are getting older and manual focussing in very low light is not so much fun any more
• I've come to prefer EVF and WYSIWYG, compared to optical viewfinder.

This has led to me again thinking about selling my M11, and even thinking about going full circle to a Q3 and accepting the 28mm limitation. Cropping to 50mm is 'only' a 1.7x crop. But I don't like having equipment that I don't really use, especially when it is very expensive, and don't want to keep going in circles.

On the other hand:

• The M11 is incredibly small and light and a magnificent example of industrial design with a rich history. 
• I took it on a recent business trip to Thailand, got some nice shots with the 50mm and when not using it just disappears. My SL2-S would have been quite the handful with the other stuff I needed to carry.
• I prefer the overall design of the M11 to the Q series, and like having the opportunity to use a camera that has all analogue controls, plus the possibility to use my 'native' 50mm

 

 

[hoolyproductions]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

ps.I also agree with you on the "50mm only" idea. Over the years I have found this a great way to forget about lenses and find more interesting compositions. I quite often go out with just the SL2-S and relatively light 50mm SL ASPH (or slip a 24mm into the bag in case I see a really interesting wider angle scene 😃). This is actually where I have landed for a lighter kit that still lets me enjoy all the benefits of the SL system. For now that's my conclusion/solution and I won't be buying any more L mount lenses (such as a lighter zoom).

I'll continue to torture myself on the Q/M (or something else) equation.

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

Gibals are overrated. Everyone does that, even if there's no storytelling-based motivation behind it. In many cases, a properly handheld camera is, dramatically speaking, the better choice. Gimbals don't make proper dolly tracking obsolete because the story behind the gimbal is about a flying eye while dollying a shot is not about flying. It's solid tracking, a very different storytelling device. Thus, the question of why the camera should fly is often only answered by the dumb answer, "Because it looks cool". BTW, female filmmakers tend to approach filmmaking less technically—usually the better approach.

Seriously, as you own the excellent BM 6KFF and probably use Resolve for editing, why not use Resolve's great stabilisation tool? It works in tandem with your camera (you only have to set the focal length for Resolve to read the EXIF data correctly for stabilisation) and shoot your moves hand-held. It works astonishingly well at 35mm and even longer; you only have to consider a broader framing for the inevitable cropping that comes with stabilisation.

Thank you, that's helpful comment - even if it is diverting this thread!
I have recently been a set photographer for a couple of university film productions where they had a professional team supporting the students (I learned a lot from them). They both used handheld cameras without gimbals.
I have used a gimbal when a handheld camera had a useful story telling role, but I shall rethink how to do it next time (a gimbal is an awkward object to transport!) The couple of occasions when I tried without, my steps were distractingly obvious in the camera movement. Maybe I should just improve my walking style.
Yes, I use Resolve, and have used its stabilisation tools for other handheld footage.

[hansvons]

10 hours ago, hoolyproductions said:

I often find the sharpness of the M11 to be disappointing. I don't know if this is user error, the lack of IBIS, rangefinder calibration or something else. My SL2-S just seems to do better

I read this frequently. I'm sure it's not the range finder, as this is a new camera. I assume people zoom into the files and are disappointed because things look slightly soft. With a 60MP sensor, motion blur (aka camera shake) will be more visible on pixel level because the MTF is higher. The same can be said about lenses and focus, of course. The more accurate a system becomes, the more previously hidden errors are exacerbated because hardly visible issues are now visible (we have that in science all the time). 

The 50ies rule is usually 1/50 for smaller prints. I need at least 1/125 for 35mm for large prints to rule out motion blur, and I am not too bad at hand-holding a camera. For 50mm, that would be 1/250 to ensure motion blur isn't compromising sharpness. That, of course, isn't an issue with the SL2-S because that camera has a brilliant IBIS that allows for 4-5 times longer exposure times. My experience is with 35mm film that resolves max. 20MP. Translate that to the M11's 60MP, and things will be even more sensitive.

If I were to shoot portraits at f/2 (some people own Summiluxes and shoot proudly at f/1.4), I'd use the SL2-S to ensure the eyes are tack-sharp. When I use my Ms for that, I always stop down to f/2.8 and shoot at min. 1/125. And even then, I might miss the eyes by a hair. Look at what people post on the M forums. It's telling. Whether that matters is in the eye of the beholder. For me, sharp images are part of the craft. 

[hansvons]

9 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Maybe I should just improve my walking style.

The trick is to pussyfoot like a cat with the knees never straight. And when you stop and hold the shot or pan, breathe out. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I see you have a SL3 coming. I’d wait until it arrives.

The SL3 has a small weight saving. But they’ve also moved the grip a tiny bit closer to the lens mount. This has had the effect of making the camera feel lighter than the weight savings would indicate due to better balance. Lenses just feel a bit lighter on the SL3 than the SL2 because they balance better. It’s a subtle but definite improvement. I’ll guess your 24-90 will fell more nimble on the SL3 and you may not worry as much about a lighter zoom.

I wouldn’t say no to a 20-70 like the Sony one though. Unfortunately the Panasonic isn’t quite there.

Gordon

[hoolyproductions]

11 hours ago, hansvons said:

I read this frequently. I'm sure it's not the range finder, as this is a new camera. I assume people zoom into the files and are disappointed because things look slightly soft. With a 60MP sensor, motion blur (aka camera shake) will be more visible on pixel level because the MTF is higher. The same can be said about lenses and focus, of course. The more accurate a system becomes, the more previously hidden errors are exacerbated because hardly visible issues are now visible (we have that in science all the time). 

Yes I think this is most likely the main reason (and some occassional sloppiness on my part). I do tend to get better "pixel peeping" sharpness at higher shutter speeds. What surprised me is that I did not observe this at all with my 47MP Q2 or SL2 - I can only assume that the IBIS and very slightly sharper lenses come into play here. When I sold my Q2 I thought I could use the M11+28mm Elmarit as a kind of 'analogue' Q2 but I found the files did not stand up to cropping anywhere near as well. Same experience using the M11+50mm Summilux compared to SL2+50mm ASPH or 50mm APO, which seem very sharp and well resolved even at approx. 200% magnification.

This, combined with my ongoing preference for WYSIWYG EVF, possiblity to use AF etc is the main thing that made the M11 lose its appeal a little.

Thanks a lot for your thoughts. I'm still not going to sell or buy anything yet, but this thread has been very helpful therapy (thanks also Gordon, indeed I will wait for the SL3).

[jiggyb21]

On 7/11/2024 at 3:37 AM, hoolyproductions said:

Other zoom options where I go around in circles:

• The Panasonic 24-105mm seems well regarded here but (i) I like to use back button focus, which is not an option with the clutch mechanism on this lens and (ii) I’m reluctant to duplicate a zoom range I already have – giving further choice anxiety 😀
• The Panasonic 20-60mm gets more mixed reviews but seems very capable, almost as light as the Sigma 18-50mm, would give me 24mm (and wider) has an AF/MF switch for back button focus. With crop mode it would get me to 90mm.

Thinking about it now, the 20-60mm seems to make a lot more sense than the 18-50mm and I am thinking about doing a trade it to try it out. However I wonder how often I would really use it versus 50mm + 24mm, which would give me a very similar range.

The Panasonic 24-105 does not have a MF clutch, only the Lumix S line of lenses do.  Having said that, the lens is okay for a walk around but I actually just sold it because I found it pretty soft anywhere outside center at every single focal length compared to just about anything else I own.  I even ran some pretty extensive tests before pulling the trigger to sell.

[hoolyproductions]

6 hours ago, jiggyb21 said:

The Panasonic 24-105 does not have a MF clutch, only the Lumix S line of lenses do.  Having said that, the lens is okay for a walk around but I actually just sold it because I found it pretty soft anywhere outside center at every single focal length compared to just about anything else I own.  I even ran some pretty extensive tests before pulling the trigger to sell.

Thanks jiggy - indeed that explains why pictures show an AF/MF switch. I was misled by one review online. In any case this thread has helped me to realise that adding a lighter standard zoom to my kit will not improve my quality of life or 'which kit to take' decision making 😀

[Aldophoto]

I only use primes... then my personal solution is:

1) light and happy:  M10-P + 35mm Summilux Aspherical (yesssss THE Aspherical!)

2) happy but heavier: SL2-S + 90mm APO Summicron  + 24mm f/1.4 Sigma Art (couldn't afford the 28mm APO Summicron)

3) happy and backpain:  1 + 2

Actually I think that is the final use of your pictures that could drive your choice: print? go for the backpain, web? M11 and crop.
I'm adding a sample image done with my 35mm: Milan Cathedral, I've printed it 70x100cm and you can easily read the ticket office info on the low right side.
This just to say that If you have such a resolution, you won't be sad in cropping and saving your back.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[hoolyproductions]

13 hours ago, Aldophoto said:

Actually I think that is the final use of your pictures that could drive your choice: print? go for the backpain, web? M11 and crop.
 

Thanks. That's quite a jump from 24 to 90mm, I would miss 50mm I think.

Final use is one way of looking at it - if you know before you go out where your pictures will be going. I do often go on photocentric trips with something specific in mind (and tend to bring heavier kit for this) but most of my photography is opportunistic, in the course of my daily life, which is more what this thread is about - finding that balance. M cameras are certainly one way to do it, but I've been a little disappointed with the results and user experience (a very personal thing) when compared with my SL2-S. 

For me this boils down to (1) M11 with 50mm Summilux and 28mm Elmarit (2) SL2-S with 50mm ASPH SL and 24mm Sigma 3.5 (adding a 90mm if I really want telephoto, or then just using my mahoosive zoom).

[huwm]

Currently I choose SL2S with APO 35 and 75 over the Panasonic 24-105 or 16-35 plus 70-300 combinations I also use as a fairly ‘lightweight’ kit

not too heavy for me using think tank sling 

for really light then I could go 20-60 but I usually default to Q3

The APOs are fantastic and worth the extra weight and lack of ‘zoom’

[hoolyproductions]

Thanks huwm. I also have a couple of APOs (50/90mm) and I adore them, but when travelling 'light' I prefer the SL 50mm ASPH plus a one or two smaller sigma lenses (24mm 3.5 and/or 90mm 2.8).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[crf59]

Hmmm. My 3 main cameras at present are the M11, SL3, Q3 and I just added a brand new little D Lux 8.

I hear all the talk of the SLs being too big and heavy but if I had to pick only one camera and lens, it would be the SL3 w/24-90. That combination is lighter than the SL3 with 2 APO primes. Also, people talk about the size, but if you place an SL3 with 24-90 next to a Z8, D850 and 24-70 or similar, it's actually smaller.

In comparison to my m11 or Q3, sure, it's anecdotal beast. But you have nowhere near the flexibility using those as you do with the SL3 and zoom. IQ of the 24-90 is terrific and it focuses quickly and reliably. It's not quite as good as my 35 or 90 APOs., but pretty darn close.

If I really need to go lighter, I'll use the M11 w/35 Lux or Q3. And a lot lighter and I'll use the little D Lux 8 (which is a lot better than all the negative talk).

All that said, here is a shot of a few of my cameras across generations - IIIG on the left, SL3, D Lux 8, and a Nikon FE2 with 50mm. And yikes, from this perspective the SL3 is a monster.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 27, 2024 by crf59

[bherman01545]

On 7/11/2024 at 3:37 AM, hoolyproductions said:

Not the first thread of this type, but I thought I’d share my experience on this and see what sort of feedback it triggers. It turned out to be a long post that boils down to opinions on the Sigma 18-55mm APS-C versus the Panasonic 20-60mm.

For my more ‘serious’ photography, which is typically either music photography in low light (here I generally use f2 primes, sometimes a Summilux-M) or landscapes/cityscapes (the fabulous 24-90mm zoom). I don’t have any issue with the weight on photocentric excursions. In other situations – more social or longer hikes/city breaks when I need to carry some other things the above combinations are often both bulkier and heavier than I would like.

I’ve gone down the route of a Q2 and Leica M11 (still have the latter) and am in danger of ‘cycling’ between these two as alternative cameras, neither being fully satisfying to me. Sticking with SL for now, here is what I have tried and am still pondering but I suspect this is more GAS than anything that would significantly improve my experience

Prime route

• SL2 with 50mm ASPH (non APO). This is what I usually take for a lightweight and versatile kit, with 50mm being by  far my preferred focal length (one of the main reasons I never really ‘gelled’ with the Q2). Like many others I often find that being ‘stuck’ with this only focal length only actually delivers more creative/interesting shots.
• As above with Sigma 24mm f3.5. A very lightweight lens with very good results. With APS-C mode I can use it like a 24-35mm.
• As above with either Sigma 90mm f/2.8 or, (if I want best quality Leica APO 90mm). When in open country or big city vistas I use 90mm (and cropping) very often and really like the short telephoto look.
• These three lenses together still weigh quite a bit less than my 24-90mm for overall weight.

This has been my main lightweight kit for well over a year, not tempted to make any changes – I have happily settled with this and am not looking to make changes.

The downside comes when I am in a situation where a zoom would be better, which for me boils down to either bad weather conditions and/or landscape situations where I have only a few minutes to find some nice shots and want to work quickly through the focal range (e.g. changeable weather, just a short pit stop on a hike with others). Or I am doing some casual photography and would simply like the versatility of a zoom.

Zoom route

• I have the fabulous 24-90mm and, when using a zoom, this is my strong preference. I don’t find the weight at all burdensome in use, but it is pretty bulky/heavy if I need to carry other things and when I am carrying it ‘just in case’ I encounter something interesting.
• Sigma 18-50mm. I have this but have never really used it. Right now I have the SL2-S, maybe when my SL3 arrives I will give it another go with the extra resolution. I feel that the crop mode is too much a compromise with SL2-S and I miss both the wider end of 24mm and the longer of 90mm. Rather than use this I always either take the 24-90mm or a couple of primes, as above.

Other zoom options where I go around in circles:

• The Panasonic 24-105mm seems well regarded here but (i) I like to use back button focus, which is not an option with the clutch mechanism on this lens and (ii) I’m reluctant to duplicate a zoom range I already have – giving further choice anxiety 😀
• The Panasonic 20-60mm gets more mixed reviews but seems very capable, almost as light as the Sigma 18-50mm, would give me 24mm (and wider) has an AF/MF switch for back button focus. With crop mode it would get me to 90mm.

Thinking about it now, the 20-60mm seems to make a lot more sense than the 18-50mm and I am thinking about doing a trade it to try it out. However I wonder how often I would really use it versus 50mm + 24mm, which would give me a very similar range.

I own both an SL2 and SL2-S. A few months ago, I picked up a Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 DG DN II and can tell you that it is fabulous. I took it through three European countries under extreme heat, wind, and rain, and no issues. The image quality is superb on my SL2-S and is 400g lighter than the 24-90. It was a great purchase for me.