Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.29 #6 · Leica SL images and specs. Looks somehow familiar... | |
Goodrich wrote:
To SL, or not to SL, that is the question:
For architectural / landscape photography, I have been pleased with the M240 and have also used my M lenses with the Sony A7r II. I have been fairly pleased with both cameras, but the Sony has fewer limitations.
For the M240: works well with light M lenses. (This is a big plus: fantastic gear that sits at home is no use, obv.) GPS with grip (which adds to weight)
Against: liveview for wide angle lenses is OK for framing, but can focuses only centrally. Rangefinder not a great solution for 28mm+ lenses, if you wear glasses, as I do.
Sony A7r II: light body, IBIS, tiltable screen, 42Mpx, high resolution and dynamic range sensor. A few good AF lenses available (Zeiss Batis, 55mm f1.8) and some v light ones that have curates egg properties (28mm f2, 35mm f2.8).
Disadvantages: some wider angle M lenses play badly with the sensor, no GPS, Lightroom lens correction needs to be applied manually.
Now comes the SL:
It's key selling point for my purposes:
- making the most of light M lenses,
- EVF allows focusing as well as a rangefinder without any further assistance and better, if using the enlargement options are used.
- has GPS
- exif data transmission allows auto lens profile correction in Lightroom
- better shooting experience that the Sony, allegedly?
Disadvantages relative to the M240 and A7r II:
- heavy (although the gap narrows if the grip is used on the M240);
- sensor not as capable as the A7rII (if better than the M240);
- lack of IBIS narrows the shooting envelope further;
- expensive for a digital body with a half life of 2 years
- limited eco-system, so AF capabilities wasted (this and the price is going to keep the pros, who will need at least 2 bodies, at bay)
Have I missed anything?
Should I stick with what I have, or sell the M240 for the SL?...Show more →
You certainly have a good kit, but I think you should consider these issues.
1) Do you plan to use two camera? If you are planning to keep an A7 series body and a Leica body the decision is very different than if you plan to keep just one body. Personally, I think an A7 series body with the SL vs. an A7 series body with the M240 or next M, turns into a question of the SL vs. M240 or the next M and how they complement the an A7 series body. I think a lot of that dependents on what glass you want to shoot. If you want to shoot some longer and heavier glass the SL has a distinct advantage. For example, in my case I know I would like the Leica S 120 f/2.5 Macro. Being able to shoot that on the SL is a big plus for the SL. I also plan to shoot some of the Zeiss Otus lenses and I am pretty sure I will prefer using those on the SL to the A7r II or an M240 or the next M. If you only plan to shoot E mount glass and short M mount glass then the M camera makes a lot more sense.
2) Do you prefer an EVF or an OVF with rangefinder? It sounds like as a fellow glasses user you don't find the rangefinder that easy to use. I know I feel the same way, but to be fair I haven't put in enough practice. For those who love the rangefinder, however, there will probably never be a substitute for the M.
3)What is your budget? If you have a limited budget, then I think the A7 series is a fair better value, but perhaps not quite as much at it would seem at first blush. If I compare an A7r II to an SL, then I am pretty sure I would have different upgrade cycles. With the Sony A7 series, I would anticipate upgrading every 2 years. With the SL, I would upgrade every three years at the most--I doubt Leica will produce cameras any faster than that. If you figure a 50% depreciation over the upgrade cycle for both cameras, then then A7r II is about $67 a month, whereas the SL is about $104 a month. If the Leica holds its value a bit better than the Sony, which it might, then the cost would be even closer. For example, if you adopted a 4 year upgrade cycle for the SL and it only lost half its value in that time, then the cost would be just $78 a month, which starts to get pretty close to the Sony.
But all of that is moot if you plan to keep both a Sony A7 series and a Leica body. I think if you are keeping two cameras and deciding which Leica body to keep the cost isn't a big issue.
4) How important is size (i.e., does size matter?  ?) This not only depends on the two bodies vs one question but if you are using two bodies how you plan to do so. If you have two bodies and are happy taking just one for times when you want small size, then having the A7 series body makes the size issue less important. The size difference between an M camera and the SL also isn't that great, but if you would always or often carry the two bodies then I can see why it would matter.
Personally, I plan to get the A7r II for my wife with a nice set of AF lenses and a few of the Loxia lenses, and an SL for me with a nice set of M lenses, a few R lenses, the S 120 Macro, and a few Milvus and Otus lenses. I think the two cameras will complement each other well and I think the SL in my case will complement the A7r II better than an M body would, but these decisions are likely to vary by individual.
|
I would be in heaven with three bodies: M9, A7s.mod and A7r2.mod 
Though I would say, coming from a FF DSLR w/stock screen, you'd feel the SL w/1.4 lenses is an upgrade. But again, not as much as going from a DSLR to the S-system.