Canon -> Leica - advice?

[PhotoAarnes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

Long time lurker from Norway 🇳🇴 here. Leica-shooter for 1,5 year

I wanted to start with a TL;DR, but i don't think that's possible. 
 

This is probably going to be a longer post, but i really appreciate if someone would take some time to read through and share thoughts. 

Has been a Canon-shooter for many years, with RF-system since 2020. 
Currently i have a R6 Mark II (just sold my R5) and the whole line-up of glasses from Canon (All L) . (15-35 F2.8 / 24-70 F2.8 / 70-200 F2.8 / 100-500 F4.5-7.1 / 8-15mm fisheye F4

About a year and a half ago, i bought my first Leica, a Q2. Mainly because of the weight and size when traveling. i wanted a smaller but great camera.
I spent about 8 months with it, then decided to upgrade to Q3, and i love it. 

But it did not stop here. In December 24 i pulled the trigger and bought SL2-S with 2/35 (got a great price, thats why), as well as a Summicron 2/50 and 2/90 APO.
I love the SL2-S and it feels so much better in many ways than the Canon. Even if it's bigger. But here is now my challenge. Using two different systems is not very economically sustainable, at least not for me, so now i'm looking into a full conversion to Leica. 

I'm not doing photo for a living today (but maybe in the future, never know), but i travel quite much, and what i use my gear for is travel/street, festivals (EDM, inside and outside), safari, studio (mainly press kits for artists) and my dog. 

Two bodies is a must when i do festivals, so now i'm trying to figure out what would be the best addition to what i already have. 
I feel that the SL2-S replace the R6 Mark II (Both great in low light, approx. same MP). 

Would SL3 be the best equivalent to the R5? Or could SL2 do enough? 
Yes - i have googled and read a lot, also had long and deep conversations with ChatGPT, but it would be great to have the opinion from people here as well. I guess i'm not the first one that has moved from Canon to Leica. 

Additionally, what Leica-glass should i prioritize to replace what i have today? 

I'm not sure if i can compare focal lengt apple-to-apple between Leica and Canon either.. 

If i take my different scenarios mentioned above, this is what i use: 

General travel: Q3 (So this is check already)
Festivals: R5 with 70-200 and R6 MKII with 8-15mm fisheye (Fisheye is EF so i could probably use a L-EF adapter)
Sometimes also filming with R6 MKII and 24-70, but this can be replaced with SL2-S and 35 or 50. 
Safari: R5 with 100-500 and R6 MKII with 70-200 (sometimes 24-70) and Q3 for landscape (28mm)
Studio: Now i have been using SL2-S with 2/90 APO - works very well. (Before SL2-S it was R5 with 70-200)
My dog: Depends on his mood - but 70-200 is mostly used. 

As you probably understand, i'm "hovering" a bit, struggling with what to keep and buy, and in general proceed to have a complete set up. 

Any suggestions, recommendations, thoughts to share from the elite in here? would really appreciate it. 

 

Thanks-

/Joachim
 

 

[jaapv]

In my opinion the higher MP count of the SL3 won’t add much ( maybe some cropability) to your type of photography.  However the ISO performance and better AF of the SL3S will. IMO it is the best general-use camera for travel and events that Leica offers. The fact that you have an SL2S which is only one generation behind and very close in rendering will bring harmony in you set-up. Most Safari photographers on this forum use the long Sigma lenses, me included Even the Sigma 70-200 is more practical than the Leica version as it offers various OIS settings and practical functions that Leica lacks. Plus fast AF. 

[Eoin]

If you opt to keep the SL2-S then I suggest the SL2 as the companion (common button layout common menu system) €2.5k

If you want to spend €11k then obviously SL3-S & SL3. Then you'll have to budget for L mount glass on top of that outlay.

 

I'm currently undecided regarding adding a 70-200 or 90-280 zoom so I'm in the same boat.

Edited January 28 by Eoin

[PhotoAarnes]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

In my opinion the higher MP count of the SL3 won’t add much ( maybe some cropability) to your type of photography.  However the ISO performance and better AF of the SL3S will. IMO it is the best general-use camera for travel and events that Leica offers. The fact that you have an SL2S which is only one generation behind and very close in rendering will bring harmony in you set-up. Most Safari photographers on this forum use the long Sigma lenses, me included Even the Sigma 70-200 is more practical than the Leica version as it offers various OIS settings and practical functions that Leica lacks. Plus fast AF. 

Thanks for input regarding long lens - will for sure that that into consideration. 
But how much better are the ISO and AF on SL3-S compared to SL2-S? In Canon-world, the "upgrades" from last model is rarely worth the difference in real money.

54 minutes ago, Eoin said:

If you opt to keep the SL2-S then I suggest the SL2 as the companion (common button layout common menu system) €2.5k

If you want to spend €11k then obviously SL3-S & SL3. Then you'll have to budget for L mount glass on top of that outlay.

 

I'm currently undecided regarding adding a 70-200 or 90-280 zoom so I'm in the same boat.

I plan to keep the SL2-S. So main question is SL2, or SL3. But no, i don't want to spend money unnecessary. (At least not if it doesn't give me anything special) 
And based on jaapv's answer - it doesn't sounds like the SL3 will add that much, if i read it correctly. 

90-280 looks like an amazing piece of glass - but it comes with a price 👨‍⚕️

 

[Eoin]

The SL2 @ €2-2.5k for a mint 2nd hand body will give a common interface and layout along with the bump in resolution.

I completed it the other way around just last week SL2 -> SL2-S both together €5k, both virtually new with full Leica 3 year warranty.
Possibly the cheapest Leicas I’ve ever owned in my lifetime. Both extremely capable, I want for nothing other than my skill set to fully utilise their capabilities.

The bonus for me is the almost common interface between systems, M10-R, Q2M & SL2 & SL2-S. I can’t say I notice any disadvantages between the 40 mpx of these and my M11-M at 60mpx even with it having no bayer filter.

It’s easy to get distracted by the tech and advancements of the next generation, but IMO, it’s a very hefty price to pay for the upgrade … which again IMO is mediocre at best. The “investment” in Leica is extremely expensive taking into consideration both bodies and lenses. I always try to buy 2nd hand to mitigate the huge drop from the “new” price.  If you’re seriously considering the SL system, the SL2 series represents extraordinary value at this very moment in time.

[HPFM]

vor einer Stunde schrieb PhotoAarnes:

Thanks for input regarding long lens - will for sure that that into consideration. 
But how much better are the ISO and AF on SL3-S compared to SL2-S? In Canon-world, the "upgrades" from last model is rarely worth the difference in real money.

I plan to keep the SL2-S. So main question is SL2, or SL3. But no, i don't want to spend money unnecessary. (At least not if it doesn't give me anything special) 
And based on jaapv's answer - it doesn't sounds like the SL3 will add that much, if i read it correctly. 

90-280 looks like an amazing piece of glass - but it comes with a price 👨‍⚕️

 

The SL3 will add -if needed- the tilt screen, a better afc for wildlife and a better behaviour in low light. You can shot underexposed photos and pull them up in LR-not a good way with the SL2…. 
I just ordered the SL3s as second body to my SL3…. Instead of the 90-280 i(which i also own) i would recommend the 70-200 and for wildlife a 100-400 and / or the sigma 500/5.6 - for me the Sigma ( and the 1.4 extender) is an impressive lens. 

[lightsourcekauai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did this last year. Nearly the same trajectory and cause, Leica Q2 first. Then I wanted more so I sold all my Canon L glass-- 300 f/2.8, RF 600 f/4, RF 70-200, RF 100-500, and etc... Sold my R5 and R3, too. I first added the SL2 as I waited for the SL3 to arrive. I picked up a 21 APO, and the 90-280 APO, and later a 35 APO. Now I have the SL3, SL2 and Q2. I use the SL3 the most. Both the SL2 and SL3 are so good for landscape and seascape photography that, when I am out photographing, I do not worry about which lens is on which body. Before leaving the house I will put the primary lens for the session on the SL3. In essence the SL3 is my first choice camera body. In this way I start with the intention of using the SL3 as my primary camera, but if the situation and scene warrant another lens then I change the camera on the tripod and not lenses on the camera. With that being said, I do prefer using the SL3. I like the tilt screen and battery grip that I have for it. I also think it has better dynamic range than the SL2, but just nitpicking. They are both excellent cameras for landscape and seascape photography.

In comparison to Canon's lineup, I would say that the SL3 is more like the Canon 5DS R than the R5. Colors are rich and the files are very detailed. The feeling in hand is robust. The biggest difference, however, with the Leica SL3 in comparison to the Canon bodies that I have used is the amount of Dynamic Range available to you in the SL3. The files are really, really good. My wife even says, "the Leica just takes different pictures." This and the Highlight Weighted Metering Mode of the Leicas make photographing in difficult lighting easier. This basically allows one to photograph scenics without Graduated ND filters. Something that I would be hesitant to do with previous Canon bodies on any sunrise or sunset. But with the Leicas, especially the SL3, I don't worry about it. Lastly, If the SL2 had more resale value at this time, I would sell it and get a second SL3. But as it is now, for the money I would get, the SL2 has more value in my kit than out. 

The difficulty-- I think-- comes with the safari photography that you plan on doing. I personally do not feel that the Leica camera system-- in my hands-- is capable of producing excellent results consistently. Yes, it is possible to get great results-- even outstanding results-- but the pain and suffering needed to get those results just isnt' worth it for me. It is easy to be seduced after the fact by the Image Quality of the good images one gets, and forget about the poor and slow auto focusing and animal tracking. The blurring EVF is also difficult and rather unpleasant for me to use when photographing wildlife. Now, with that being said, I will take my Leica SL3 and 90-280 lens to Tanzania next week. Again, the IQ is very, very good. However, I will also take the Canon R1 and RF 400 f/2.8. I will use the Canon as my primary body and the Leica the for special moments when I think it will excel. It's just not a camera that I want to use all the time when photographing wildlife. As for the Sigma 500 f/5.6 lens, I owned it for about 8 weeks, but sold it after 6 weeks of photographing in Alaska and Hokkaido, Japan. It just didn't work for me as well as I wanted it to. 

The Leica 90-280 is an excellent lens. And while it does not have an exact Canon equivalent, I think it compares best to the RF 100-300 f/2.8. The size, focal range, build quality, and cost of the Leica is more on par with the Canon's 100-300 than with the RF 70-200. The newer PZ 70-200 may be closer to the Leica in terms of build quality. The Canon RF 70-200 is not anywhere near as nice to use as the Leica 90-280. The Leica is simply an outstanding lens and a joy to use. The zoom is so smooth. And the colors this lens renders are so rich. But it is an expensive lens, and now that there is a Leica 70-200, is the cost justified? I have not used Leica's 70-200 f/2.8 lens yet, but would love to try it. I imagine if I didn't have the 90-280 already I would have purchased the 70-200 the day it was released. It is such a wonderful focal length for landscape and seascape photography. For wildlife, less so, but there are moments when we do get lucky. I think the 90-280 has more uses while on Safari. Perhaps not as useful as others, but more useful than a 70-200 (certainly in the National Parks where one must stay on the jeep tracks and off roading isn't allowed).

All in all, I am happy with my current set up. But I can only say this because I have Leicas for my landscape and seascape photography, and a Canon for wildlife. So my advice would be: If wildlife photography is VERY important to you, keep the R5 and at least one RF lens for wildlife. Be a dual shooter and use each system when and where it excels. If however, wildlife isn't that important then sell the Canons; get a long Sigma lens; and be very patient and forgiving of the Leica's shortcomings. But revel in the outstanding Image Quality of the few images that you will inevetiably manage to keep. Hey, sometimes we have to suffer for the art.  

Good luck,

Lee

[lightsourcekauai]

2 hours ago, lightsourcekauai said:

keep the R5 and at least one RF lens for wildlife

Im sorry. Should say keep the R6 as you already sold the R5. 

[jpark114]

You know you will be missing AFc performance with AI from Canon.  R6m2 AF is Canon's top of the line, slightly less performing than R1 & R5m2.  I think all your goals seem doable except shots requiring heavy af performance.  As per @lightsourcekauai said, there's not a real alternative for 70-200 in leica side compared to RF 70-200.  Canon RF 70-200 are fairly light and small (if you go external zooming one).  So any occasion that you use 70-200 heavily will be impacted.   Yes we have 90-280, stunning images but bit slower AF & heavy as hell.  Leica or Sigma 70-200 is pretty nice (I only have experience with Sigma 70-200) if you can live with less quality image compared to RF. 

If you can live with that by adjusting the way you shoot, less burst shots, bit slower going kind of work flow, I'd say Leica's wonderful.

Since you have SL2-S, I'd say you better go for higher res.  Photo wise, I'd say SL2-S& SL3-S seems almost alike.  If I were you, I would like to have a variety & go for higher rez so that I can also take a high rez shots for easy crop.

Edited January 29 by jpark114

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I have all the cameras and lenses you have mentioned, except the R6ii.

1. The only camera that’ll get close to the R5/R6ii in AF terms is the SL3-S. I’m not saying you need it but if you do. It’s an obvious choice. Assuming you want/need the highest level Leica has then it’s a choice of one. It’s not at the Canon level, but mostly good enough.

2. If you want the higher pixel count then definitely the SL3. The files and ISO performance are MUCH improved on the SL2. As is the AF. SL2’s are cheap for a reason. The SL3 has class leading file IQ. Your high ISO performance is basically the same as your SL2-S but with more pixels.

3. You can use the Sigma adaptor for you 8-15. I do.

4. Wide zoom. Several Options. If you don’t need filters then the Sigma 14-24 f2.8 for sure. There’s zero advantage to the Leica variant. With a need for filters the Panasonic or Sigmas are both good. I think the 16-35 SL is marginally better but at a very large cost.

5. For the 24-70. The Sigma is the best current option, if you get the 70-200 2.8. The Leica 2.8’s are basically a copy of the Sigmas. You could get the Leica 24-90 (fabulous) or wait for the rumored Sigma 28-105 f2.8. If you get the 24-90 it’s a vario (2.8-4) but you could match it to the 90-280 APO or 100-400.

6. The 90-280 is spectacular but not really useful for wildlife. The AF motors are much much slower than the 100-400. For the 100-400 get the Leica variant as the Sigma has limited weather sealing. The 1.4x works well with it.

7. The Sigma 500mm 5.6 is spectacular and in L mount takes the teleconverters. You can use a Leica TC on a Sigma lens etc…

If it were me. I’d likely get the SL3-S for the AF improvements. If you want 2.8’s for the zooms then the Sigma’s for sure but I prefer the 14-24 Sigma, 24-90 and 100-400 Leica’s. Then add the 500 for your wildlife shooting with the TC (also works on the 100-400 and 70-200). You may then find that you swap out the SL2-S for a SL3 is you need the pixels.

Gordon

[costa43]

Unless you must have the highest resolution in a 2nd body then for festivals (or any event for that matter) I would be looking at the new SL3s from the Leica stable. It’s very similar to the output of your current SL2s in image quality/lowlight but comes with a good upgrade on AF, so if you value/require this in what you do then it’s the best Leica has current day.  

 

Edited January 29 by costa43

[PhotoAarnes]

7 hours ago, lightsourcekauai said:

I did this last year. Nearly the same trajectory and cause, Leica Q2 first. Then I wanted more so I sold all my Canon L glass-- 300 f/2.8, RF 600 f/4, RF 70-200, RF 100-500, and etc... Sold my R5 and R3, too. I first added the SL2 as I waited for the SL3 to arrive. I picked up a 21 APO, and the 90-280 APO, and later a 35 APO. Now I have the SL3, SL2 and Q2. I use the SL3 the most. Both the SL2 and SL3 are so good for landscape and seascape photography that, when I am out photographing, I do not worry about which lens is on which body. Before leaving the house I will put the primary lens for the session on the SL3. In essence the SL3 is my first choice camera body. In this way I start with the intention of using the SL3 as my primary camera, but if the situation and scene warrant another lens then I change the camera on the tripod and not lenses on the camera. With that being said, I do prefer using the SL3. I like the tilt screen and battery grip that I have for it. I also think it has better dynamic range than the SL2, but just nitpicking. They are both excellent cameras for landscape and seascape photography.

In comparison to Canon's lineup, I would say that the SL3 is more like the Canon 5DS R than the R5. Colors are rich and the files are very detailed. The feeling in hand is robust. The biggest difference, however, with the Leica SL3 in comparison to the Canon bodies that I have used is the amount of Dynamic Range available to you in the SL3. The files are really, really good. My wife even says, "the Leica just takes different pictures." This and the Highlight Weighted Metering Mode of the Leicas make photographing in difficult lighting easier. This basically allows one to photograph scenics without Graduated ND filters. Something that I would be hesitant to do with previous Canon bodies on any sunrise or sunset. But with the Leicas, especially the SL3, I don't worry about it. Lastly, If the SL2 had more resale value at this time, I would sell it and get a second SL3. But as it is now, for the money I would get, the SL2 has more value in my kit than out. 

The difficulty-- I think-- comes with the safari photography that you plan on doing. I personally do not feel that the Leica camera system-- in my hands-- is capable of producing excellent results consistently. Yes, it is possible to get great results-- even outstanding results-- but the pain and suffering needed to get those results just isnt' worth it for me. It is easy to be seduced after the fact by the Image Quality of the good images one gets, and forget about the poor and slow auto focusing and animal tracking. The blurring EVF is also difficult and rather unpleasant for me to use when photographing wildlife. Now, with that being said, I will take my Leica SL3 and 90-280 lens to Tanzania next week. Again, the IQ is very, very good. However, I will also take the Canon R1 and RF 400 f/2.8. I will use the Canon as my primary body and the Leica the for special moments when I think it will excel. It's just not a camera that I want to use all the time when photographing wildlife. As for the Sigma 500 f/5.6 lens, I owned it for about 8 weeks, but sold it after 6 weeks of photographing in Alaska and Hokkaido, Japan. It just didn't work for me as well as I wanted it to. 

The Leica 90-280 is an excellent lens. And while it does not have an exact Canon equivalent, I think it compares best to the RF 100-300 f/2.8. The size, focal range, build quality, and cost of the Leica is more on par with the Canon's 100-300 than with the RF 70-200. The newer PZ 70-200 may be closer to the Leica in terms of build quality. The Canon RF 70-200 is not anywhere near as nice to use as the Leica 90-280. The Leica is simply an outstanding lens and a joy to use. The zoom is so smooth. And the colors this lens renders are so rich. But it is an expensive lens, and now that there is a Leica 70-200, is the cost justified? I have not used Leica's 70-200 f/2.8 lens yet, but would love to try it. I imagine if I didn't have the 90-280 already I would have purchased the 70-200 the day it was released. It is such a wonderful focal length for landscape and seascape photography. For wildlife, less so, but there are moments when we do get lucky. I think the 90-280 has more uses while on Safari. Perhaps not as useful as others, but more useful than a 70-200 (certainly in the National Parks where one must stay on the jeep tracks and off roading isn't allowed).

All in all, I am happy with my current set up. But I can only say this because I have Leicas for my landscape and seascape photography, and a Canon for wildlife. So my advice would be: If wildlife photography is VERY important to you, keep the R5 and at least one RF lens for wildlife. Be a dual shooter and use each system when and where it excels. If however, wildlife isn't that important then sell the Canons; get a long Sigma lens; and be very patient and forgiving of the Leica's shortcomings. But revel in the outstanding Image Quality of the few images that you will inevetiably manage to keep. Hey, sometimes we have to suffer for the art.  

Good luck,

Lee

Thank you for taking your time with such a long answer! 🙂 
Safari is not very important to me - it's not what i'm usually doing, but when i'm first are going on a safari, i want to get the most out of it with photography. 
So based on your answer, and the post below, maybe i should just keep the R6 MKII. 

3 hours ago, jpark114 said:

You know you will be missing AFc performance with AI from Canon.  R6m2 AF is Canon's top of the line, slightly less performing than R1 & R5m2.  I think all your goals seem doable except shots requiring heavy af performance.  As per @lightsourcekauai said, there's not a real alternative for 70-200 in leica side compared to RF 70-200.  Canon RF 70-200 are fairly light and small (if you go external zooming one).  So any occasion that you use 70-200 heavily will be impacted.   Yes we have 90-280, stunning images but bit slower AF & heavy as hell.  Leica or Sigma 70-200 is pretty nice (I only have experience with Sigma 70-200) if you can live with less quality image compared to RF. 

If you can live with that by adjusting the way you shoot, less burst shots, bit slower going kind of work flow, I'd say Leica's wonderful.

Since you have SL2-S, I'd say you better go for higher res.  Photo wise, I'd say SL2-S& SL3-S seems almost alike.  If I were you, I would like to have a variety & go for higher rez so that I can also take a high rez shots for easy crop.

Yes, the AF on the R6 MKII is very good. I haven't compared it to the SL2-S yet, but i guess i should. That would give me a little clue how the big difference actually are. 
But hey, i hear you many others are talking about this AF-thing. So based on your answer, and the post above, maybe i should just keep R6 MKII + 70-200 for the action photos. 

2 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I have all the cameras and lenses you have mentioned, except the R6ii.

1. The only camera that’ll get close to the R5/R6ii in AF terms is the SL3-S. I’m not saying you need it but if you do. It’s an obvious choice. Assuming you want/need the highest level Leica has then it’s a choice of one. It’s not at the Canon level, but mostly good enough.

2. If you want the higher pixel count then definitely the SL3. The files and ISO performance are MUCH improved on the SL2. As is the AF. SL2’s are cheap for a reason. The SL3 has class leading file IQ. Your high ISO performance is basically the same as your SL2-S but with more pixels.

3. You can use the Sigma adaptor for you 8-15. I do.

4. Wide zoom. Several Options. If you don’t need filters then the Sigma 14-24 f2.8 for sure. There’s zero advantage to the Leica variant. With a need for filters the Panasonic or Sigmas are both good. I think the 16-35 SL is marginally better but at a very large cost.

5. For the 24-70. The Sigma is the best current option, if you get the 70-200 2.8. The Leica 2.8’s are basically a copy of the Sigmas. You could get the Leica 24-90 (fabulous) or wait for the rumored Sigma 28-105 f2.8. If you get the 24-90 it’s a vario (2.8-4) but you could match it to the 90-280 APO or 100-400.

6. The 90-280 is spectacular but not really useful for wildlife. The AF motors are much much slower than the 100-400. For the 100-400 get the Leica variant as the Sigma has limited weather sealing. The 1.4x works well with it.

7. The Sigma 500mm 5.6 is spectacular and in L mount takes the teleconverters. You can use a Leica TC on a Sigma lens etc…

If it were me. I’d likely get the SL3-S for the AF improvements. If you want 2.8’s for the zooms then the Sigma’s for sure but I prefer the 14-24 Sigma, 24-90 and 100-400 Leica’s. Then add the 500 for your wildlife shooting with the TC (also works on the 100-400 and 70-200). You may then find that you swap out the SL2-S for a SL3 is you need the pixels.

Gordon

Thanks Gordon!
1. I haven't tested SL3-S and are not planning to get one, but is the AF on SL3-S that much better than in the SL2-S? If you have compared... 

2. The higher MP is really not something i MUST have, but with R5 and R6II, i had one body with high MP, and one body with less MP but great in lowlight. I have done some cropping over the years, but not very much. Maybe... 50-100 photos out of... 20 000? 

4. Wide zoom is really not something i use much, except from when using the 8-15mm. I'm pretty sure the Q3 can cover the need of wide zoom. 

1 hour ago, costa43 said:

Unless you must have the highest resolution in a 2nd body then for festivals (or any event for that matter) I would be looking at the new SL3s from the Leica stable. It’s very similar to the output of your current SL2s in image quality/lowlight but comes with a good upgrade on AF, so if you value/require this in what you do then it’s the best Leica has current day.  

 

Well, when looking at photos from the festivals, i think the photos from the R6 MKII are slightly better IQ and overall better compared to the R5. It's not often i have to crop that kind of photography, and if i do, it's minor cropping. Thanks.

-----
My local dealer has offered me to loan a SL2 over the weekend, so i can test it, and compare it to the two other bodies i have. 

I notice that some of you are talking about Sigma-lenses. I'm a bit hesitant to pair Leica with Sigma, mainly because of the quality. i mean - for me, a Leica body with Sigma-lenses would be like buying a Maserati, with 1.6l diesel engine, and putting on the cheapest and crappiest wheels you can find. I may be wrong, but from my experience with Sigma and Canon, there is a reason for why i only have RF-glass.. 

[keeping_a_balance]

2 hours ago, PhotoAarnes said:

there is a reason for why i only have RF-glass.. 

That would be because they did not allow (and still don't allow) Sigma to release FF lenses on RF...

I know what you mean though. Would suggest you read reports/reviews, look at the images from their lenses on the L mount forum etc...  

[PhotoAarnes]

12 minutes ago, keeping_a_balance said:

That would be because they did not allow (and still don't allow) Sigma to release FF lenses on RF...

I know what you mean though. Would suggest you read reports/reviews, look at the images from their lenses on the L mount forum etc...  

Well yes, good point. But before i got the RF-system, i had 5D MKIII and 6D, same lineup with EF-glass. 
But yes, i will take a look and read more about that. Thanks.

[tom0511]

C-AF on the SL2/ SL2-s -> forget it; S-AF is fine though

C-AF on SL3 (and I assume even better with the SL3-s) - you can use it but its still a big gap compared to Canon R5/R3. Clearly better keeper rate with the Canons, also better viewfinder image during burst shooting in C-AF.

I use Canon mainly for sports. You might miss the good C-AF for images of your dog in action or for wildlife.

You might also miss the lens options of Canon if you plan to use longer lenses: The Canon 100-500 for example, or the light and compact 70200RF/2.8 or 4.0. You can buy a Sigma/Leica 70200/2.8 which is good but not as compact as the Canon RF 70/200.

 

In regards of SL2 vs SL3...specially if you sell the Canon I would lean towards the new Leica body SL3 or SL3-S because of phase AF. I also believe the SL3 has better noise behaviour than the SL2. In my case I replaced both SL2 and SL2-S with a SL3. Depending on the light on your events the SL3 might work good enough at higher ISO.

I must say for handball and fast sports the gap of AF and speed is still big enough that I want to keep my Canon for those things.

 

[PhotoAarnes]

5 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

C-AF on the SL2/ SL2-s -> forget it; S-AF is fine though

C-AF on SL3 (and I assume even better with the SL3-s) - you can use it but its still a big gap compared to Canon R5/R3. Clearly better keeper rate with the Canons, also better viewfinder image during burst shooting in C-AF.

I use Canon mainly for sports. You might miss the good C-AF for images of your dog in action or for wildlife.

You might also miss the lens options of Canon if you plan to use longer lenses: The Canon 100-500 for example, or the light and compact 70200RF/2.8 or 4.0. You can buy a Sigma/Leica 70200/2.8 which is good but not as compact as the Canon RF 70/200.

 

In regards of SL2 vs SL3...specially if you sell the Canon I would lean towards the new Leica body SL3 or SL3-S because of phase AF. I also believe the SL3 has better noise behaviour than the SL2. In my case I replaced both SL2 and SL2-S with a SL3. Depending on the light on your events the SL3 might work good enough at higher ISO.

I must say for handball and fast sports the gap of AF and speed is still big enough that I want to keep my Canon for those things.

 

So.. keep R6 MKII + 70-200 and 100-500, for fast moving and tele. 

Q3 and SL2-S for everything else. 

[tom0511]

I guess for those times when you (just) bring the Canon you also should keep your Canon 24-70.

For example when I shoot handball and after the game take a group image of the team the 70200 is too tight.

 

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, PhotoAarnes said:

Thank you for taking your time with such a long answer! 🙂 
Safari is not very important to me - it's not what i'm usually doing, but when i'm first are going on a safari, i want to get the most out of it with photography. 
So based on your answer, and the post below, maybe i should just keep the R6 MKII. 

Yes, the AF on the R6 MKII is very good. I haven't compared it to the SL2-S yet, but i guess i should. That would give me a little clue how the big difference actually are. 
But hey, i hear you many others are talking about this AF-thing. So based on your answer, and the post above, maybe i should just keep R6 MKII + 70-200 for the action photos. 

Thanks Gordon!
1. I haven't tested SL3-S and are not planning to get one, but is the AF on SL3-S that much better than in the SL2-S? If you have compared... 

2. The higher MP is really not something i MUST have, but with R5 and R6II, i had one body with high MP, and one body with less MP but great in lowlight. I have done some cropping over the years, but not very much. Maybe... 50-100 photos out of... 20 000? 

4. Wide zoom is really not something i use much, except from when using the 8-15mm. I'm pretty sure the Q3 can cover the need of wide zoom. 

Well, when looking at photos from the festivals, i think the photos from the R6 MKII are slightly better IQ and overall better compared to the R5. It's not often i have to crop that kind of photography, and if i do, it's minor cropping. Thanks.

-----
My local dealer has offered me to loan a SL2 over the weekend, so i can test it, and compare it to the two other bodies i have. 

I notice that some of you are talking about Sigma-lenses. I'm a bit hesitant to pair Leica with Sigma, mainly because of the quality. i mean - for me, a Leica body with Sigma-lenses would be like buying a Maserati, with 1.6l diesel engine, and putting on the cheapest and crappiest wheels you can find. I may be wrong, but from my experience with Sigma and Canon, there is a reason for why i only have RF-glass.. 

Note that a considerable number of lenses that Leica releases nowadays are Sigma (and some Panasonic too) designs and of identical optical performance of their Sigma counterparts. One pays for them being “ Leicafied” I. Different barrel materials ( the superior claim which I am not convinced of, although others would disagree) and simplifying I.e. omitting of controls. The L Alliance appears to have encouraged a high level of cooperation between the partners. For instance I have a Summicron L 50 and A Panasonic sibling 35. For the design and feel I prefer the Leica but it is not a 1500$ preference. Optically identical with Leica scoring marginally better in the corners wide open by reducing the aperture from 1.8 to 2.0. For the 70-200 I consciously chose the Sigma for the extra control and faster autofocus with identical optical performance and similar yet different quality feel. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

Note that a considerable number of lenses that Leica releases nowadays are Sigma (and some Panasonic too) designs and of identical optical performance of their Sigma counterparts. One pays for them being “ Leicafied” I. Different barrel materials ( the superior claim which I am not convinced of, although others would disagree) and simplifying I.e. omitting of controls. The L Alliance appears to have encouraged a high level of cooperation between the partners. For instance I have a Summicron L 50 and A Panasonic sibling 35. For the design and feel I prefer the Leica but it is not a 1500$ preference. Optically identical with Leica scoring marginally better in the corners wide open by reducing the aperture from 1.8 to 2.0. For the 70-200 I consciously chose the Sigma for the extra control and faster autofocus with identical optical performance and similar yet different quality feel. 

Agreed. Mostly there’s no reason to get the Leica version of the shared lenses. For me the exception is the 100-400. The Sigma version has the most basic weather sealing where the Leica variant has the full weather sealing stuff thrown at it. The SIgma is a contemporary lens. For Sport and Art lenses the argument is difficult.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

The 70-200 2.8 is a Sports lens with full weather sealing. Twin AF motors make really fast. Cine-enabled with an  optional aperture ring and declick switch. And Leica-level optics.