Sl2-S versus SL3 versus SL3s reckoning what to do best.

[Matt Todd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone. This is my first post. Currently I own a Canon R5, Mark II , Leica Q3 (which I absolutely love) and I just got an  Leica SL2s .  As a photographer, I primarily shoot street photography and documentary photography at political protests. I really am impressed with the quality of the photos that the SL2S is producing. 

I am thinking of trading in my Canon Gear and completely switching over to the  Leica system. I just find the like a system so intuitive and there is something unquantifiable about how beautiful  the images are.

 

So I would keep the Leica Q3  and 

1.) Keep the SL2S 

2.) Return the SL2S and upgrade to the  SL3s probably like new used.

3.) Return the SL2S and upgrade to the SL3 probably like new used.

 

The only independent Leica Lens I have is the Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron-SL ASPH [11193] so I would also consider getting an additional lens  either a 35mm or 24-70mm

 

I think I’m trying to reconcile is the  24 vs 60 megapixels and speed and what will be best for what I like to shoot .

 

Any thoughts and recommendations would be greatly appreciated . 

 

Thank you so much for your thoughts. 

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

The differences between SL2S and SL3S are rather marginal. A slightly better AF, a tilting rear screen, a somewhat better noise performance ( excellent vs excellent+) slightly more compact. For me no reason to spend one euro on an upgrade. The SL3 only makes sense if you find a compelling need for an overdose of pixels. 
For lenses don’t discount the Panasonic and Sigma options. (your Summicron is basically a LUMIX lens) 

[Jeff S]

First post and you’re already flirting with GAS.  The forum is not the place for a cure.  Keep shooting and decide if any shortcomings or needs; go from there. 

And, welcome.

[LeicaR10]

Matt Todd,  First, welcome to the forum.  You will find this is very good place to read or receive advice from many well seasoned photographers that offer their sage advice, to include myself.  Second, I agree with Jaapv's comment in his Post 2.  Third, I owned and used both SL3 versions and found myself going back to the SL2 and SL2-S.  I simply didn't need more MPs or fast AF to achieve the results with my genre of photography.  The SL2 versions are simply reliable, and deliver most excellent results.  As photograhers realize in time, more is not often better nor needed.  Mastering the camera and lens in hand is what delivers photographs that are stunning through thoughtful composition, light and sometimes even luck (right time, right place). Photographers who are gear oriented often find themselves taking mere photos vs masterpiece photographs through excellent composition and light.  You will get those who offer their sage advice for lenses and cameras that often work best for them, yet only you can decide what is best for your photography.  IMO, you have two excellent cameras, SL2-S and Q 43.  If you want lens advice, I suggest you consider SL 24-70 for your documentary work.  The Q 43 will also be most helpful if you wish to be more discreet.  Just my 2 cents.  r/ Mark  

Edited 10 hours ago by LeicaR10

[PhotoCruiser]

I this February i had to decide to get a in perfectly new condition used SL2 at half price or at double cost a new SL3/SL3-S to add to my beloved Q2.
The advantage of the SL3 has no importance to me or are to marginal to fork out another 3K, so i got the SL2.
I was considering a SL2-S for the less noise as i photograph often at night but i also shoot never higher than 28mm so i need to be able to crop so the S version was out of the choice. However, if i would start agin to do concert photography and/or reach a limit for low light photography i would consider the SL2-S, same if i would do video.

Honestly i would keep the SL2-S if you are happy and don't need the new features of the SL3-S and invest in lenses or travels to use the SL2-S.
Beside that fast lenses are heavy and bulky beasts, i prefer them over a f/2.8 or higher lens and i got used to use prime lenses as i never liked zooms on digital cameras where i can crop.
I would also keep the R5 MKII as she will shine if you photograph fast objects as it's autofocus and ergonomic is considerable better than the SL series, i kept my Nikon D800 body and will buy a Sl to Nikon Adapter to use my Sigma lenses on her, you may do the same.

As others already mentioned, Sigma and Panasonic build lenses who do very well and not only on the SL series, Panasonic is a bit cheaper but also more plastic while the Sigma ART series give a very nice haptic feeling, but are heavier than the Panasonic ones. It seems that the optic quality between Sigma and Panasonic is near identical, same for Sigma Contemporary and Art series. I've chose the ART series ones just to be sure/believe that i have the best non Leica lens on my Leica.
If you want to stick with Leica then choose wisely what lens to buy, not all Leica lenses are simply the best, some are and some are not really better than Sigma/Panasonic as they are built by them, but with much higher price tag if Leica is written on it.

Chris

Edited 3 hours ago by PhotoCruiser

[Pelu2010]

I would spend the money in traveling and making images. 

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In the last month I have switched from the SL2-S to the SL3-S. Earlier this year I switched from the Q2 to the Q3 43. If you're in a position to burn money without thought, then there is no reason for you not to do the same. In both cases, however, I had owned the cameras for a good long time, and had specific reasons for making the changes.

I simply prefer the 43mm focal length to 28mm, so when it became available I changed - though regretted losing the Q2 Reporter colour and gaining the dull dark grey Q3 43. I unexpectedly found the tilt screen a benefit for taking shots from high angles (crowds) and floor level (I can bend, but not quite as quickly as I used to, and it saves your trousers when shooting fungi in the woods).

The advantages of the SL3-S are less obvious, but for what I use it for the tilt screen is also a real benefit: getting a different angle on actors, musicians and dancers. This one for example. It has perhaps an extra stop in low light, but this is of less value than I expected (fortunately I didn't buy it for that reason). The other advantage of the SL3-S for me is the button placement on the right side rather than the left side of the screen. For my sort of work I find it quicker, because my fingers are already there; my left hand fingers are normally around the lens.

My guess is that for most people these changes are not significant. In your shoes I would forget about cameras and concentrate on photographs until I found I was restricted by hardware.

[Photon42]

I just traded my Nikon Z gear some months ago and started out with an SL2s and a 24-90 - both not bought new, but in good shape. If you are a pro, you want two cameras anyways. In that case, I would try to find a mildly used SL3. The 60MP SL3 gives you crop options in case you cannot get close enough. On the lenses, I think you would benefit from a 24-70 or 24-90. There are enough threads here about all the pros and cons of the contenders.