Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
My vision has made RF focusing harder, as things deteriorate I tend to only use my M6 in good light and my M-P240 (when I still had a battery that worked) with the EVF. (And my Nikon RF gear is just for fun.) I find my Nikon Zs to be much easier to focus due to their very nice EVFs, the Zf in particular is a dream.
However, I have Leica M lenses I’d like to be using much, much more than currently. I’ve used them adapted on my Zs but they don’t set me on fire.
I’m starting to consider a used SL series body of some sort. I’m a manual or aperture priority shooter, so the way M lenses work on them is fine and I already have the Leica M to L adapter that has six bit support. Plus, I’ve started getting into the L lens ecosystem with my Sigma BF - the Sigma lenses I’ve tried are no slouch.
What I’m trying to reason my way through is what model. Prices on the SL2 and SL2-S are acceptable, I don’t think I would want to spend the extra for a SL3 but that’s not definitive. I’m leaning toward the full resolution models, but low light performance is a consideration - I love shooting by streetlight.
Can anyone offer first hand experience and advice about life with M lenses on the various SL bodies? The only reason I’m considering one after my ongoing M-P240 battery abandonment by Leica is that third party batteries are available.
However, I have Leica M lenses I’d like to be using much, much more than currently. I’ve used them adapted on my Zs but they don’t set me on fire.
I’m starting to consider a used SL series body of some sort. I’m a manual or aperture priority shooter, so the way M lenses work on them is fine and I already have the Leica M to L adapter that has six bit support. Plus, I’ve started getting into the L lens ecosystem with my Sigma BF - the Sigma lenses I’ve tried are no slouch.
What I’m trying to reason my way through is what model. Prices on the SL2 and SL2-S are acceptable, I don’t think I would want to spend the extra for a SL3 but that’s not definitive. I’m leaning toward the full resolution models, but low light performance is a consideration - I love shooting by streetlight.
Can anyone offer first hand experience and advice about life with M lenses on the various SL bodies? The only reason I’m considering one after my ongoing M-P240 battery abandonment by Leica is that third party batteries are available.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
From a few hours of reading and watching videos, I’m thinking a SL2 may be the answer. It seems solid to 6400 with no heroics.
peterm1
Veteran
I made the same transition as you, and for the same reason - increasing difficulty in focusing using Leica M cameras. In my case I opted for the original SL) if for no other reason than that one turned up at a local camera store and the change over from my Leica M was very reasonable indeed. I can make a few comments about my experiences with it.
- I think even my original model SL is a very useful step up from the compromises one must make when using an M - which is 70 year old technology (even a digital one.) It is faster, more flexible and while there is a learning curve naturally this in fact is very short - the basics can be gained in a couple of days easily.
- I love to shoot old lenses. Including Leica M glass, Leica LTM, Canon LTM, Nikon Rangefinder glass and a wide variety of SLR lens marques. All of these can be successfully used with just the addition of a relatively cheap adapter. (Adapters generally run from very cheap to quite expensive but I find that even the moderately priced ones are very good - certainly good enough.) In fact, for convenience I have recently swapped to a system of habitually using a Leica M to Leica L mount adapter on my SL body and mounting a corresponding Leica M to whatever mount type ta specific lens requires.) Thereby making all lens types a form of Leica M mount lens. This is remarkably successful even though it involves stacking adapters unless of course I am mounting a native M mount lens. (Very, very occasionally I have had an issue with tolerances of the adapters being out enough to create issues with infinity focus but this is very rare.) Some people advocate only buying the most expensive lens adapters available (some of these can run to several hundred dollars (as of course does the Leica made M to L adapter) but I find it is not really necessary. Though if it "floats your boat" go for it. One Leica L to Leica M mount adapter I did buy recently is a Light, Lens Lab close focusing adapter (i.e. with a helicoid) for Leica M lenses. This provides a full range of correct focus from close up to infinity and the adapter is extremely well engineered. Not all such close focus adapters will provide a full range of focus however so be aware. It cost me about $100 USD.
- Having said all of this you might correctly surmise that the SL works well with Leica M glass.
- My SL's focus peaking is quite good though not world leading (it is after all now a 8/10 year-old camera body). But with image zooming as a further option it all works very well. You certainly get neither with a Leica M.
- The SL lacks in body stabilization. I regard this as perhaps its biggest shortcoming as I have been spoiled by other camera types that have it too. I believe later versions of the SL have it, including the SL2. For me this would be perhaps the only reason to upgrade to an SL2 as there is no doubt it is an asset in some situations.
- My SL has a dynamic range of 13.4 Ev. Later bodies are even more (up to 15 Ev I believe). Its ISO settings run from 50 ISO to 50,000 ISO. I have not done much night shooting or low light shooting but only a few days ago took it with me on a night walk. Its low light performance I thought to be very good, as might be expected. My initial feeling was that its low light performance was, however, a little less than the other low light "Queen" I own - also an older camera of similar vintage, the Sony A7s (original version) the ISO of which is said to exceed an insane 400,000. I have shot it at I think 100,000 just for a test and was impressed with the outcome - a photo of the back yard in nothing but moonlight and it did well. But then again, this is probably an unfair comparison - the image size on the A7S is a mere 12 megapixel compared with double that for my SL. I cannot say if the SL2/3 would do even better.
- I use auto ISO and as a matter of practice have kept the max to 12,600 ISO on my SL camera (I find that any more is superfluous in anything but the most extreme circumstances) and upon enlargement of the images there was some noticeable noise (both color and mono) but it was not egregious and also cleaned up very nicely in post processing - modern image editors have become very good at this.) So over all I can predict you should be happy with any of these camera's low light performance even if shooting at night. I will post two shots below taken with this camera on that night just to show you what I got with this and a Leica M lens Bear in mind however that I used a Leica Summarit from the mid 1950s and though I shot at f2 not f1.5 the images are characteristically low in contrast and color saturation, and have some blooming from bright lights - all of these are lens issues (which actually I rather like) not camera issues. I did not check at the time but anticipate that they would have been made at 12,600 ISO as this is the max auto ISO I had set at the time.
- A bit of an afterthought. If you want good outcomes, I always advocate shooting RAW files and post processing for best outcomes with any modern digital camera. Especially if you like low light images - JPGs out of camera just do not perform well in that environment on any system. The SL series is no exception. If shooting film presently this may mean learning some new skills.
Despite comparatively bright light sources (which look much brighter and more effective than they were in reality) the restaurant was really very dim - I should know I eat there quite often at night with friends.
- I think even my original model SL is a very useful step up from the compromises one must make when using an M - which is 70 year old technology (even a digital one.) It is faster, more flexible and while there is a learning curve naturally this in fact is very short - the basics can be gained in a couple of days easily.
- I love to shoot old lenses. Including Leica M glass, Leica LTM, Canon LTM, Nikon Rangefinder glass and a wide variety of SLR lens marques. All of these can be successfully used with just the addition of a relatively cheap adapter. (Adapters generally run from very cheap to quite expensive but I find that even the moderately priced ones are very good - certainly good enough.) In fact, for convenience I have recently swapped to a system of habitually using a Leica M to Leica L mount adapter on my SL body and mounting a corresponding Leica M to whatever mount type ta specific lens requires.) Thereby making all lens types a form of Leica M mount lens. This is remarkably successful even though it involves stacking adapters unless of course I am mounting a native M mount lens. (Very, very occasionally I have had an issue with tolerances of the adapters being out enough to create issues with infinity focus but this is very rare.) Some people advocate only buying the most expensive lens adapters available (some of these can run to several hundred dollars (as of course does the Leica made M to L adapter) but I find it is not really necessary. Though if it "floats your boat" go for it. One Leica L to Leica M mount adapter I did buy recently is a Light, Lens Lab close focusing adapter (i.e. with a helicoid) for Leica M lenses. This provides a full range of correct focus from close up to infinity and the adapter is extremely well engineered. Not all such close focus adapters will provide a full range of focus however so be aware. It cost me about $100 USD.
- Having said all of this you might correctly surmise that the SL works well with Leica M glass.
- My SL's focus peaking is quite good though not world leading (it is after all now a 8/10 year-old camera body). But with image zooming as a further option it all works very well. You certainly get neither with a Leica M.
- The SL lacks in body stabilization. I regard this as perhaps its biggest shortcoming as I have been spoiled by other camera types that have it too. I believe later versions of the SL have it, including the SL2. For me this would be perhaps the only reason to upgrade to an SL2 as there is no doubt it is an asset in some situations.
- My SL has a dynamic range of 13.4 Ev. Later bodies are even more (up to 15 Ev I believe). Its ISO settings run from 50 ISO to 50,000 ISO. I have not done much night shooting or low light shooting but only a few days ago took it with me on a night walk. Its low light performance I thought to be very good, as might be expected. My initial feeling was that its low light performance was, however, a little less than the other low light "Queen" I own - also an older camera of similar vintage, the Sony A7s (original version) the ISO of which is said to exceed an insane 400,000. I have shot it at I think 100,000 just for a test and was impressed with the outcome - a photo of the back yard in nothing but moonlight and it did well. But then again, this is probably an unfair comparison - the image size on the A7S is a mere 12 megapixel compared with double that for my SL. I cannot say if the SL2/3 would do even better.
- I use auto ISO and as a matter of practice have kept the max to 12,600 ISO on my SL camera (I find that any more is superfluous in anything but the most extreme circumstances) and upon enlargement of the images there was some noticeable noise (both color and mono) but it was not egregious and also cleaned up very nicely in post processing - modern image editors have become very good at this.) So over all I can predict you should be happy with any of these camera's low light performance even if shooting at night. I will post two shots below taken with this camera on that night just to show you what I got with this and a Leica M lens Bear in mind however that I used a Leica Summarit from the mid 1950s and though I shot at f2 not f1.5 the images are characteristically low in contrast and color saturation, and have some blooming from bright lights - all of these are lens issues (which actually I rather like) not camera issues. I did not check at the time but anticipate that they would have been made at 12,600 ISO as this is the max auto ISO I had set at the time.
- A bit of an afterthought. If you want good outcomes, I always advocate shooting RAW files and post processing for best outcomes with any modern digital camera. Especially if you like low light images - JPGs out of camera just do not perform well in that environment on any system. The SL series is no exception. If shooting film presently this may mean learning some new skills.
Despite comparatively bright light sources (which look much brighter and more effective than they were in reality) the restaurant was really very dim - I should know I eat there quite often at night with friends.
Last edited:
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I know folks complain about YT videos and the folks who post them. However, Matt Osborne and mathphotograpger have both been productive and useful for me. Both have covered the Leica SL's at some length so it might pay to check these fellows out. And so many dislike Overgaard but he has done the SL's, too. I like the guy. He is sometimes useful, an M-9 fanatic and has used what he reviews. As always, YMMV. Cheers
peterm1
Veteran
I like them both. Osborne is great for showing the practice of using them in a working practice - mostly portraiture (and he is a big user of Leica vintage glass) Overgaard is more into modern system lenses and if anything is perhaps a bit of a M fanatic.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Long term user of M`s and a long term user of an SL2s.
My only comment would be (after handling one) is try the SL3.
I find the SL2s unnecessarily bulky and heavy unlike the SL3 which was slimmer , lighter and much more nimble in the hand.
There are other advantages to the SL3 which you may find useful.
My only comment would be (after handling one) is try the SL3.
I find the SL2s unnecessarily bulky and heavy unlike the SL3 which was slimmer , lighter and much more nimble in the hand.
There are other advantages to the SL3 which you may find useful.
Last edited:
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Those are dangerous words on this board. "You can have my M-9 when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers." ;o)
Fanatic?? Informed!! Leica M9 Review - Page 1 - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages LOL
peterm1
Veteran
There is nothing wrong with being an M fanatic. I only mean that if the OP wants advice specifically on an SL series camera Matt might be better as he uses them quite a bit and unlike T.O. who seems to be held in the vice like grip of the "love that dare not speak its name" (Leica M love)
Matt Osborne SEEMS a bit more objective. But as I said. I enjoy them both.(Of course I appreciate there are plenty of Leica M fanatics here too. Nothing wrong with it.)
Speaking personally, I now feel about Leica M in much the same way I feel about my marriage......................... that is to say, I used to think it was perfect.
Last edited:
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I had the Leica SL typ 601. A lovely camera. I made something like 60,000 photos with it over the three-four years I owned it. I sold it after I retired as I felt that it was a bit larger and heavier than I wanted to carry all the time. It was probably foolish of me.
When I had the SL, I had the 24-90 and 90-280 SL lenses. They were brilliant, but mostly too big and heavy for constant use. I adapted my M and R lenses to the SL body: they worked beautifully together, that's what I used 90% of the time.
I am happy with my pair of M10s (-M and -R), but I could see buying an SL2 body. Not for any reason of my eyesight, but for the IBIS to use with my longer lenses (R 135, 180, plus doubler). And I've grown comfortable with image dynamics on a 40 mpixel sensor.
G
When I had the SL, I had the 24-90 and 90-280 SL lenses. They were brilliant, but mostly too big and heavy for constant use. I adapted my M and R lenses to the SL body: they worked beautifully together, that's what I used 90% of the time.
I am happy with my pair of M10s (-M and -R), but I could see buying an SL2 body. Not for any reason of my eyesight, but for the IBIS to use with my longer lenses (R 135, 180, plus doubler). And I've grown comfortable with image dynamics on a 40 mpixel sensor.
G
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I’m curious why a person considering an SL wouldn’t also consider a LUMIX S in one of its variations, for thousands less. They — Leica SLx and LUMIX S1/5 — use the same lenses. You could buy a LUMIX and have money left over for Leica L-mount glass.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
This entire post is hugely valuable information - thank you!!!
I like this idea. I already have one of the Leica M to L adapters that has six bit coding so I’m a little ahead of the game; I like the idea of being able to adapt some of my oddball MF lenses to work on it. I already have a fair number of those whatever-to-M adapters.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I’d love to, but a SL3 is completely out of budget.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Because the Panasonics have the typically modern do-everything UI that I’m trying to avoid. The SL series appeals because of the very limited button set, my Z9 is a good example of a camera that is supremely versatile but one that you have to be very careful with hand position to keep from unintended settings changes. The SL2 in particular is very much like my Q2M with a few practical button additions that are out of the way.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Decision made.
I found a clean SL2 at MPB - having a warranty is worth the extra cost, plus they seem to use demand pricing so the current cost seems is low since they have several. I'm boxing up a bunch of things I was planning on selling anyway and shipping them off in trade.
My current plan is to mostly adapt the M mount lenses I listed at the top but also any L mount Sigmas I have for the BF - currently just the 45/2.8, but I have a 24/3.5 preordered and plan to get a 17/4 and 90/2.8 over time. As I continue my grossly overdue camera closet pruning I may even consider a Leica lens or two, I’m thinking a 24-70 or 24-90 but haven’t given it any analysis yet since it’s off in the future.
I’m looking forward to this!
I found a clean SL2 at MPB - having a warranty is worth the extra cost, plus they seem to use demand pricing so the current cost seems is low since they have several. I'm boxing up a bunch of things I was planning on selling anyway and shipping them off in trade.
My current plan is to mostly adapt the M mount lenses I listed at the top but also any L mount Sigmas I have for the BF - currently just the 45/2.8, but I have a 24/3.5 preordered and plan to get a 17/4 and 90/2.8 over time. As I continue my grossly overdue camera closet pruning I may even consider a Leica lens or two, I’m thinking a 24-70 or 24-90 but haven’t given it any analysis yet since it’s off in the future.
I’m looking forward to this!
shawn
Veteran
The S1 series also have direct buttons for any functions you need so you wouldn't need to go into the menus and a lock switch to basically disable all the buttons. You wouldn't have to worry about accidentally hitting a button you aren't using. You can even customize what buttons are still available when you lock it and I think you can map buttons to no function too. The S1/S1R/S1H viewfinder with Nikon DK17M gives a viewfinder magnification that is great with adapted glass.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Less than zero interest…
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
This is true. I believe Osborne touches on this in his reviews and uses both the SL's and the Lumix's.
peterm1
Veteran
I think this is a fair comment. For me it was not perhaps so much that my SL is made by Leica and has a Leica badge on it. But rather I liked how they made it. It is carved out of a solid block of high-grade aluminium and is built like the proverbial "brick outhouse" which inspires a kind of confidence in its ruggedness. Not that I knock my cameras about, far from it, but I do not mind fairly heavy equipment and it just somehow feels right for me when I use it. It did take me a while to come around however to the look of the SL. When a guy I know bought one (not long after they were first released in 2015) he tried to convince me, but I was resistant - it just looked too big and blocky. A bit inelegant compared to the Leica M I still owned. But eventually the overall concept grew on me and the fact that one can now be had for $3,000 AUD (under $2000 US) finally convinced me that it was a worthy option. Also I was able to trade my Leica M and it covered a good bit of the initial cost. I too would balk at shelling out for the cost of, say, an SL3 which is why I am happy to buy a well-kept and well maintained 10 year old earlier version. I think I could, in different circumstances, have bought a Lumix (Panasonic make some really excellent cameras) but I don't think I would feel quite the same about it in an emotional sense or that it would have given me quite the same sense of satisfaction. But that is just me. i.e. I guess I am saying that for some like me an emotional bond with a camera and joy in using it is important because it motivates me to pick it up and take it out to shoot.
Last edited:
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
The Panasonics are spectacular cameras, but they are the antithesis of what I want out of this body - near M simplicity with a top quality EVF. Quite frankly there’s really nothing one of the Panasonic bodies can do that isn’t already covered by my Z9. I’ve tried M glass on the Z9 and Zf, and to be honest the use experience was lacking.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
To the best of my knowledge, there are no third party batteries for the SL series.