Nikon z6 or Leica SL for use with Leica M glass?

R

Roel

Well-known
Local time
1:10 AM
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
316
Hi Guys,

I am about to sell my M9 (still have a M9M and M8.2) and want to replace it for a Leica SL or Z6.

Reason is that i want to be able to use the camera in higher iso than the M9 and have had quit a few assignments in High light conditions where i could not see the result properly on the LCD. So the 'What you see is what you get function' of the EVF is very interesting to me.

My M lenses: 24 f2.8 elmarit, Konica 28 f2.8, cron 35mm f2 V4, VC 40mm 1.4 sc, cron 50mm f2, 50 mm Summar + Summarit l39, Nikon 85mm m39, Canon 135mm m39

I photograph people/portraits/wedding and events.

I rented Z6 with 24-70 f4 to use for a funeral reportage. Liked the silence and iso and the B&W results.

The SL has two card slots and will work perfectly with all leica m glass i think. Used prices are now more comparable to Z6.

The Nikon z6 seems to play nicely with M-glass too but i read some complaints from forum members.

Will there be any difference (as to speed/hitrate) manually focussing the m lenses between the camera's (regarding evf / focus assist ) that i should take in consideration?

So i am thinking towards a used SL but seeing some recent brilliant Z7 results with new nikon z glass on the threads here i am wondering if i not better should go for the Nikon cause the 'standard' glas is less expensive than the l-lenses and performs really well. Especially during weddings it can be handy to have a nice AF option available. On the other hand i could occasionally rent some Panasonic L mount glass or have a look at the sigma offerings.

(for weddings now i use D700 with 35mm/50mm next to the M9)

SO..NIKON Z6 OR SL? Please help me with your insights, pros/cons.
 
Last edited:
I have the Z7 with three of the Z primes (35-50-85) as well as the 24-70/2.8 lens, and I just picked up the Novoflex adapter for Leica M glass. Although I haven't fully tested out the Novoflex adapter, my initial thought is that I don't really see the point in using M glass on this camera. Those Nikon Z lenses are truly amazing, and because of all those focus points I can nail AF off-center focusing with any of those lenses wide open. With the M glass on a Leica M body I wouldn't be so lucky and so consistent, and on the Z7 it just doesn't seem fast enough. Sometimes, however, the Z7 might 'hunt' for focus in low light, but overall it seems to be a better fit with native Z lenses. Guess I've personally become a bit spoiled by technology!

If you look in the 'Nikon Mirrorless' section you'll see an image thread that I started. You can see some examples there.
 
Hi Vince, Yes i saw the image thread and your images made me rethink if getting the SL was the best option for me. Hence the new thread i started.

Thank you for your great input.

If i would not use this new body with the M lenses but would have to buy new lenses (Z or L) i would have to take these cost also into account. Also that would maybe bring a M240 big into the Mix..
 
I am following Vince's thread with great interest.
I have an M9P with various Leica M lenses and recently I purchased a Nikon Z6 with 24/70 f4 and 50 f1.8. I must say that Nikon Z lenses are very performing both in optical quality and in autofocus speed. I have also used M optics a lot on the Nikon Z and the results are really excellent and the limit is found only in the focus as it is obviously slower and more problematic than the Leica rangefinder.
In practice, Leica M lenses are more compact, but Nikon Z lenses have the advantage of a very performing autofocus.
I think that maybe this experience, as regards the focus, can also be applied to the SL.
 
I'm not sure that this will be so helpful, but like Vince I own a SL, APO 35 Cron, and 50 Lux-SL and pretty much am spoiled by these native lenses and AF.

Not inexpensive, but all I need is a wide and a normal; and when I secure a SL2 pretty much no lens changing and I'll have a two rigged camera kit and will be done.

4 years ago when I bought the SL I knew that this camera would be worth keeping for the long run, and my idea was to spend my money once and be done. Know that I'm near retirement age...

I own a lot of legacy glass: 50 Lux-R "E60;" 58/1/2 Noct-Nikkor AIS; 28 Cron-M; 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM...

The above works well with my Leica adapters. I find having access to the Leica profiles to be important to me because I like to print large and minimize post processing to minimize digital noise and artifact.

The dual slots comes in handy, and I love that the SL is highly configurable, and that I can make one slot DNG and the other JPEG. Comes in handy because my gal is a Fashion Blogger and needs uploads to her phone pronto on the street. All that is needed is this short pigtail of a cable to her Iphone 10.

Another big deal with shooting with native glass is the weatherproofing. I have shot in downpours and violent storms with no ill effect. I would not subject any of my M-bodies to this weather.

If you think the screen and VF'er on the SL is good, I have to tell you the SL2 is mucho better, and the Maestro III processor crushes the Maestro II processor in my SL and M10.

I guess what I'm saying is consider the real big picture and the possibility if you might ever consider getting the mucho expensive native Leica glass.

The 50 Lux-SL is mucho big (82mm filter), is a porker, is not the fastest AF, sometimes hunts in low light, but it is a ASPH lens with the retro Mandlar smooth signature that is wonderful at F1.4. Consider with a 50 Lux-SL and having F1.4 you really don't need an APO 75 Cron or APO 90 Cron for portrait work.

The APO 35 Cron has 5 ASPH elements and is highly corrected. Who else makes APO wides? This is pretty much beyond perfect. This I would say is a Peter Karbe design that has this enhanced contrast in the in focus along with a smooth transition to OOF with great Bokeh. This lens loves to be shot wide open at F2.0 and renders mucho depth.

Know that the battery is the same as used on the Q2 and SL2.

Also know that even though I have all the adapters to mount, M-lenses, R-Lenses, Nikon F-Mount, and even Visoflex, that they seldom get used. I'm pretty much spoiled by the native glass.

When I secure a SL2 (I'm on three waiting lists) pretty much I'll be done with purchases for a long time: SL rigged with APO 35 Cron; and SL2 rigged with 50 Lux-SL.

Cal
 
Actually Cal I don't own an SL (not sure if you were thinking that I did). I did, however, test an SL side by side with my Monochrom 246 soon after it was released. As much as I liked it, I determined at the time that it wasn't for me, and I didn't want to take the financial hit in selling the 246 in order to get the SL. The other thing is that I didn't like the SL's EVF -- reason is that it didn't play well with my polarized prescription sunglasses. Interestingly the Z7 works fine with my polarized sunglasses, so something must be different with its EVF.

I thought about the SL2, but at twice the price of the Z7 (and the native lenses are much more pricey) it was a non-starter for me. For the price of the SL2 body you could get the Z7 body plus 3 prime lenses. Plus on paper I didn't see a whole lot of advantage for me to the SL2 over the Z7 (mind you, I can't speak with any authority comparing the Expeed 6 processor with the Maestro III processor). With the impending release of the M10 Monochrom it's very tempting, but I've decided I'm going to use the Z7 for a while and play it by ear. I'm also intrigued by the Nikon Z's 'roadmap' for the next year -- Z8 plus the 50/1.2 S lens. Who knows, I may leave Leica altogether.
 
I’m finding that my Leica Glass does well on my Z6. I’ve got a user preset that maps EVF magnification to the back AF button. Easy to focus, and more accurate for my eyes when using a lens wide open.
But as others have said, the Nikon Z glass is really very good, and has autofocus, so I usually end up just using those.
 
Vince Lupo said:
Actually Cal I don't own an SL (not sure if you were thinking that I did). I did, however, test an SL side by side with my Monochrom 246 soon after it was released. As much as I liked it, I determined at the time that it wasn't for me, and I didn't want to take the financial hit in selling the 246 in order to get the SL. The other thing is that I didn't like the SL's EVF -- reason is that it didn't play well with my polarized prescription sunglasses. Interestingly the Z7 works fine with my polarized sunglasses, so something must be different with its EVF.

I thought about the SL2, but at twice the price of the Z7 (and the native lenses are much more pricey) it was a non-starter for me. For the price of the SL2 body you could get the Z7 body plus 3 prime lenses. With the impending release of the M10 Monochrom it's very tempting, but I've decided I'm going to use the Z7 for a while and play it by ear. I'm also intrigued by the Nikon Z's 'roadmap' for the next year -- Z8 plus the 50/1.2 S lens. Who knows, I may leave Leica altogether.
Click to expand...

Vince,

Sorry for the confusion.

I was trying to draw the parallel that like you I am spoiled by both the convenience of having the speed of AF and also loving the IQ of the native glass.

My manual focus capabilities are seldom used, even though I have a lot of flexibility.

Cal
 
Roel said:
Hi Guys,

I am about to sell my M9 (still have a M9M and M8.2) and want to replace it for a Leica SL or Z6.

Reason is that i want to be able to use the camera in higher iso than the M9 and have had quit a few assignments in High light conditions where i could not see the result properly on the LCD. So the 'What you see is what you get function' of the EVF is very interesting to me.

My M lenses: 24 f2.8 elmarit, Konica 28 f2.8, cron 35mm f2 V4, VC 40mm 1.4 sc, cron 50mm f2, 50 mm Summar + Summarit l39, Nikon 85mm m39, Canon 135mm m39

I photograph people/portraits/wedding and events.

I rented Z6 with 24-70 f4 to use for a funeral reportage. Liked the silence and iso and the B&W results.

The SL has two card slots and will work perfectly with all leica m glass i think. Used prices are now more comparable to Z6.

The Nikon z6 seems to play nicely with M-glass too but i read some complaints from forum members.

Will there be any difference (as to speed/hitrate) manually focussing the m lenses between the camera's (regarding evf / focus assist ) that i should take in consideration?

So i am thinking towards a used SL but seeing some recent brilliant Z7 results with new nikon z glass on the threads here i am wondering if i not better should go for the Nikon cause the 'standard' glas is less expensive than the l-lenses and performs really well. Especially during weddings it can be handy to have a nice AF option available. On the other hand i could occasionally rent some Panasonic L mount glass or have a look at the sigma offerings.

(for weddings now i use D700 with 35mm/50mm next to the M9)

SO..NIKON Z6 OR SL? Please help me with your insights, pros/cons.
Click to expand...


Roel,

The following is my personal opinion, and it is no more than that, so please bear that in mind. However, it is an opinion based on actual long term experience, not based on ideas I picked up from reading and believing internet reviews or any other kind of received wisdom. I am not parroting anything, in other words. I owned and used the Leica SL for several years as my main digital body, and replaced it with a Nikon Z7 a year and a half ago.
At the time, I was in no way unhappy with the SL. I liked the ergonomics, and thought the button layout was genius, and was happy with the results, though was always a bit ambivalent about the capabilities of the SL sensor after coming from a Nikon D810 and having used a D850. The SL resolution was fine for my needs, it was the color depth and DR that I found to be a bit lacking in real world use. (To put that in context: It’s a great sensor in historical terms, just perhaps already a generation behind the day it was released, as Leica sensors have tended to be for years now. Sorry. It’s not an issue of resolution. Nor is it in any way a “bad” sensor, it just is what it is.)

Something to keep in mind while trying to decide if my experience is relevant to what yours might be is that I tend to gravitate towards using adapted manual focus lenses on mirrorless bodies simply because there are some rendering traits that I can get from specific lenses which are of value to me, and autofocus isn’t something I particularly need most of the time. I had the normal range “kit lens” zoom for the SL, and it’s a superb lens, but was a little big, even for me, and I am not one who is bothered by bodies or lenses which others seem to find either too big or too heavy.

The main reason I switched to the Z7 from the SL was that, although my preference is using manual focus adapted lenses, the cost of the native SL mount AF Leica glass seemed prohibitive in terms of building out an entire kit, especially to someone who would mostly only be using them when he needed auto focus.
Plus, some of the Nikon glass released in the recent past has been truly outstanding in every way ( the 28/1.4 E, and the 105/1.4E for example, as lenses whose characteristics were, for me, not only as good as anything Leica produces, but better. For me.) So my thinking was, at the time, that it would make more sense for me to go back to the Nikon platform and see how that worked, especially if the theoretical optical advantage of the Z mount over the F mount actually made a practical difference.

As it turned out, the Z7 has been a notably better camera for me to use than the SL was, in every way, even not counting the resolution “advantage” at all. The ergonomics, yes, though that is a personal preference. The sensor is just better in terms of what you can massage out of a RAW image, as compared to the SL, in terms of color, noise, and dynamic range. The resolution is incidental to all that, for my purposes. If one is only shooting jpgs, it is probably a wash.

One of the talking points in favor of the SL for Leica glass is the incorporation of in body profiles for Leica lenses. I used a lot of Leica R glass on the SL as well as some M rangefinder glass. Bottom line is that I now get better results with the R glass on the Z7 than I ever did with the SL. Every major RAW processing engine has lens profiles or you can create them yourself to suit. Whether the lens profile is applied in body or by your RAW processor is irrelevant. Wide angle M glass is going to be (somewhat) better on the SL than on the Nikon Z (see below) but that’s due to the way Leica has managed the microlenses re the sensor, it’s not due to the fact the SL has in body profiles. M glass 50mm and greater is going to be fine on the Z body, 35mm and wider will be better on the SL in terms of peripheral sharpness, but nothing else. Your 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm would be better on the SL in terms of corner sharpness due to ray angle considerations than they would be on the Z body. How significant that difference in corner sharpness is to you is a matter of personal discretion, when considered in tandem with the fact that there might be advantages of the Z sensor in terms of color, dynamic range, and resolution. There are pros and cons. If you are interested, you can find plenty of examples of shots made with e.g 21mm Super Elmar-M on Z bodies that look quite nice, even if lacking that last little bit of peripheral sharpness, and those are worth looking at if interested in separating theoretical considerations from actual obtainable results. Whether the issues with corner sharpness using wide angle M lenses on a Nikon Z body end up being noticeable enough to matter to you is, again, a personal decision, and should be weighed against other considerations. It wasn’t enough to keep me in the SL or tempt me to return.

Time will tell, but judging from the MTF results Nikon has achieved with the 58mm/ 0.95, the 50mm/1.8, and the 70-200/2.8, my guess is that the upcoming Nikon 20mm/1.8 will be, at least in terms of sharpness, corner and otherwise, sharper than anything coming from Leica, or at least as good. If I want an ultimate wide angle lens, thats where I would tend to look for a solution, and use wide M lenses elsewhere, though, actually, the imperfections in corner sharpness of wider M lenses on Z bodies is minor enough to be irrelevant to me, personally. If I were doing commercial product photography where that mattered more, or mattered at all, I would feel differently.
Rendering is another matter entirely. And, I have been personally ambivalent about the overall rendering from some of the Native Z lenses. Love the 85/1.8 and what I have seen so far from the 70-200/2.8, not completely convinced by the rendering of the 50/1.8, though that is completely subjective (and the 50/1.8 is an Otus level lens in terms of sharpness and corrections, and really cheap. Not cheap for a nifty fifty, but cheap for what it is.) Am looking forward to the 50/1.2 this year as likely providing a different take on what a lens might do.

You asked, “Will there be any difference (as to speed/hitrate) manually focussing the m lenses between the camera's (regarding evf / focus assist ) that i should take in consideration?”
The answer is,”No”. There is no appreciable difference in focusing manual focus lenses on either camera, both work very well. I might prefer the evf on the Z7 by a small margin, but they are both great, almost up to the levels of the best OVFs. Almost. Close enough for government work.

I am sure that the SL2 is a better camera than the SL, but I have not tried it, so nothing I said here applies to the SL2, though I have no intention of ever going back to that platform (he says:) ) and price doesn’t enter into that decision, only results. Sacré bleu, I’ve crossed a line!

YMMV, please note.

Longest post ever, what a slog. I must be retired, and it’s too cold to go outside and do anything else. Apologies:)
 
Native glass works much better on matched bodies whatever the system.
I have the Z7, Leica M, Oly M43 and while I first played w adapters for the fun of it they all work much better w the lenses designed for those bodies.
 
Calzone said:
Vince,

Sorry for the confusion.

I was trying to draw the parallel that like you I am spoiled by both the convenience of having the speed of AF and also loving the IQ of the native glass.

My manual focus capabilities are seldom used, even though I have a lot of flexibility.

Cal
Click to expand...

All good :)

I love my Leicas and I've been using Leicas since I was 17, so close to 40 years. It would be a big deal for me personally to completely leave Leica, but this Z system has seemingly fit into a nice spot. I can use it commercially for my video work, and I plan on taking it out West in May to see how it does with the 'Mapping the West' stuff. Plus I think I'm getting a bit tired of spending $8k+ on a Leica body, as the M10 Monochrom is likely going to be. I can save that money for the 58/0.95 ;)

Early days still with the Z7, but that's how it's looking.

BTW does anyone know of any comparisons between the Expeed 6 processor and the Maestro III?
 
Wow thank you all for the time and effort in replying to my question. So much valuable info in these posts. Very appreciated!!

I will not have the funding to buy all new L-mount lenses. At least not Leica glass. If the best way to go forward is with native glass i think i should really consider the Nikon Z route (or choose for a m240). The samples i have seen in this Nikon Mirrorless group were great. Even the my own test with the 'standard' 24-70 f4 Z lens was not bad at all.
 
If Techart had a Z to Leica M AF adapter (like they do the Sony), I would consider using M lenses more. The focus peaking on the Zs is rather cumbersome and live view totally slows everything down. I would agree to stick to AF-S and Z lenses as they work wonderfully. Using the M lenses on the Z is "fun" but not really practical. The Z is a cool platform to test M lenses against each other, though!
 
Huss said:
Native glass works much better on matched bodies whatever the system.
I have the Z7, Leica M, Oly M43 and while I first played w adapters for the fun of it they all work much better w the lenses designed for those bodies.
Click to expand...

My Noctilux 50/1 works better, yields better results on the Z7 than it did on the SL. It just does. Simply because the Z7 has a better sensor. And, no, I’m not “doing it wrong”. :)
Might it be better yet on the M10? Maybe, but I doubt it for that focal length. Sensor.

For wide angles, better to match M lenses to a Leica body? Absolutely. “Much better”? That’s where we probably disagree, as to how much much is contained in the word much. It’s much to you, it’s not much to me in day to day results, although I notoriously don’t give a d..n about corner sharpness since half the time I am adding vignetting in post to get a result I can take pleasure in looking at more than once. Plus, I don’t really find that the issues with corner sharpness of wide angle rf lenses are usually photographically significant. Personally. They are there if you actively look for them, and because they are known to be there, people talk about them. It’s what people do. Made the photo bad, impacted in a meaningful way? I don’t think so. Personally. And at 50mm and above, it’s a non issue. There are esthetic and other choices that enter into it which transcend charts and graphs. For me anyway.
But as long as people know what they are getting and it is something that fits their actual desires, and satisfies their personal needs, as opposed to something some reviewer surmised from looking at charts, then everybody’s good.
 
Do guys think your recommendation for the Z system is dependent on Z6 or Z7? Z6 has a bit better Iso i think and Z7 of course more MP. Between the two, I would choose the z6 i think.
 
Roel said:
Do guys think your recommendation for the Z system is dependent on Z6 or Z7? Z6 has a bit better Iso i think and Z7 of course more MP.
Click to expand...

I only have the Z7 because I use the MP for film scanning.
Ask yourself what would be more useful to you - high ISO or MP? Also take into account file sizes, storage, processing speeds etc..
 
Roel said:
Wow thank you all for the time and effort in replying to my question. So much valuable info in these posts. Very appreciated!!

I will not have the funding to buy all new L-mount lenses. At least not Leica glass. If the best way to go forward is with native glass i think i should really consider the Nikon Z route (or choose for a m240). The samples i have seen in this Nikon Mirrorless group were great. Even the my own test with the 'standard' 24-70 f4 Z lens was not bad at all.
Click to expand...

R,

The money has to come from somewhere.

My route involved, not owning a car, walking to work (2 1/2 miles each way), bringing my lunch to work, and taking advantage of coupons and sales to save money.

Realize that this is someone looking forward to a very nice comfortable retirement that is only a few years out.

BTW about 3 years ago I knew about the SL2 that was only recently released.

Cal
 
Roel said:
Do guys think your recommendation for the Z system is dependent on Z6 or Z7? Z6 has a bit better Iso i think and Z7 of course more MP.
Click to expand...

All other things being equal, fatter photosites are always better than smaller ones in terms of color depth and dynamic range. Tonal things. So, the Z6 is going to have certain advantages if you don’t need to print huge, or want to crop all the time. And those advantages show up in subtle color and DR ways, even in good daylight light.
I went with the Z7, but sometimes I think I’d have been just as well off, possibly better with the Z6. No regrets though.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
All other things being equal, fatter photosites are always better than smaller ones in terms of color depth and dynamic range. Tonal things. So, the Z6 is going to have certain advantages if you don’t need to print huge, or want to crop all the time. And those advantages show up in subtle color and DR ways, even in good daylight light.
I went with the Z7, but sometimes I think I’d have been just as well off, possibly better with the Z6. No regrets though.
Click to expand...

R,

Larry is correct, sometimes what matters most is the size of the pixel and not how many.

My MM with only 18 MP and no Bayer Filter Array remains a great camera, warts and all. The M-246 surely is mucho more advanced, but we are comparing CCD sensor verses a CMOS sensor.

Cal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom