Larry,
<snip>..........
In a helpful manner I think Huss summed it up in his post that for optimum performance use native glass. ......<snip>
Cal
Cal,
I considered not addressing this, again, as it might sound argumentative in a bad way, but that is not my intention. On the other hand, given the OP’s original question, a search for information as to the relative benefits of using either the original SL or a Nikon Z body with M lenses, it seemed best to not just let the above idea sit there as a given.
So far I seem to be the only person responding who has any extensive experience with both the SL and a Nikon Z and M lenses, years with the SL and a year and a half with the Z7. Anything I might have to say regarding the specific question that the OP asked is limited to that and only that, the SL vs. the Z7 and Leica M lenses. No opinion offered here about the SL2 comparison, as that isn’t what was asked for, and I have no ownership experience with the SL2.
I’ve already related some of the results of that comparison, but I feel like I owe the OP a little more emphatic conclusion.
There are potential reasons that one might prefer to stick with native glass on native bodies, matters of ergonomics, familiarity, coherence, no need for adapters, but the idea that “for optimum
performance use native glass” that’s just an idea that comes from the marketing department, it’s not the reality. Or should say, maybe so, maybe not.
For M lenses wider than 50mm, the SL or any Leica body will yield results which are somewhat sharper in the corners than the Z bodies will, for known reasons. This is true, though the differences there, until you get down to the 20mm range are in the pixel peeping area, and the insufficiency with the Z bodies is, to be clear, only in the domain of sharpness. The color depth and DR provided through wide angle M lenses will still be better when used on a Z body than on the SL.
For M lenses 50mm and above, the performance of M lenses is simply better on the Nikon Z than it is on the SL. If I may use an expression I used privately to myself when first using the Z body with lenses I had been using on the SL, even though it’s hyperbolic, the Nikon Z sensor and processing engine “trounces” the sensor in the SL. (N.B. The Nikon sensor is not a Sony sensor, fwiw). There is level of quality and competence in M lenses which the Nikon Z uncovers, which the SL simply cannot.
A lens has no idea what body it is on, it’s just refracting wavelengths of light, and passing them on to a sensor. It’s the sensor and processing engine which are going to ultimately determine its “performance”. Marketing departments always want us to “stay in the family”, and there are certainly reasons to do that besides optimum performance, but as someone who has used both these cameras extensively with Leica and other glass, I thought it unfair to the OP to let the idea just hang there, that he would get better results from his lenses on the SL. He won’t; quite the contrary, all things considered.
The SL2, as you say, might switch this completely 180 degrees, but that wasn’t what the OP was asking for.
The canard that lenses always perform at their optimum on the lens manufacturers body is just a canard, whether it is true or not for any given lens or body combination can only be determined by actual testing, not blind faith. Admittedly, blind faith is easier.
With respect,
