I’m planning on selling my Sony gear - A7RIV + GM Primes. I have hardly used it since I picked up an M10 in February. I’ve found don’t enjoy it as much and when I use it and it’s required more post processing to get the colors I want than the M10.
So after some research and handling them in the store I’m planning on picking up an SL2S. Everyone seems to rave about the color science and low light performance, both of which would be important to me for how I shoot. I’m not concerned about the AF - I don’t shoot any sports or wildlife and handling in the store made me comfortable. It would also offer another body for my M lenses.
However I am wondering if I’d wish for the higher resolution of the SL2. I generally don’t print big - usually a few favorites in the 12x18 range. And the SL2 files seem less malleable and I’ve heard the colors are not quite as nice as the SL2S.
Anyone else go through the same comparison? I feel the ideal would be a combination of both but that is probably a bit away with the SL3.
Also, anything else I should be considering before the move? I have seen a few make the move the SL system then go back to Sony.
Seems like the SL2 has better colors but haven't really seen anyone complain about the SL2S color, people seems to rave about the SL2S, low light performance too. I found the Q2 clips highlights rather quickly and not much to recover, so shooting with the SL2 has to err on the underexposed side than over?
People go back to Sony are the one's who realise the want the CAF functionality of the Sony AF system. And let's face it. The SL system is expensive. And it's a bit bigger/heavier. If the M10 is the most basic and the A7R4 does everything the SL cameras sit neatly in the middle. I've tried the Sony thing several times and have a cupboard full of Sony gear. It collects dust. If I wanted my camera to make all the decisions for me it'd be the system I'd choose. But I don't enjoy my photography as an unpaid assistant to the camera body. Most of its features were turned off when I shot them so the Leica suits me much more.
If you prefer the colour of the M10 then the SL might be the better choice. It's closer to the M10. The SL2S is closer to the M11 (which likely shares some DNA with the A7R4). But it's such a personal choice that any opinion on which is *better* is just that. An opinion. Generally the SL2S colour is a bit more hot and warm than the SL2. I don't really have a preference other than noting they are slightly different.
The single shot AF performance of the SL system cameras is actually excellent. It's the comparisons in continuous where the SL cameras struggle to compete. In single shot you'll need to make a small adjustment for contrast detect (looking for edges etc) but ev-6 is a very good low light AF performance once you get used to it. And the build, menus, buttons and joystick are sublime.
The SL2S per pixel noise level is so very very good and the high ISO performance is superb. Some of that advantage is lost when downsampling the SL2 to the output size of the SL2-S. I think as the ISO climbs the SL2S does pull ahead a bit though.
You owe it to yourself to get (or plan to) at least one of the Summicron primes. And obviously the M adaptor. I prefer the heavier 24-90 over the 24-70. The 24-90 is one of those rare zooms that is not just clinically sharp but a bit ugly in rendering. It draws really well. The 16-35 and 90-280 are superb especially the latter but I leave the Leica wide zoom at home when travelling instead taking the fabulous Sigma 14-24.
I'd be surprised if a Leica store wouldn't let you put a card in and shoot a few frames in each camera, so you could exaluate before making a decision.
I've owned all the SL models and enjoyed shooting them all. The only difference in opinion I have from Gordons well thought out post (and it's more of a preference) is that I bought into the SL system because I'm so invested in Leica m. But, I found that unlike Gordon, when I'm shooting for $ or sessions when I need AF to be perfect, I prefer having the best tool for the job, and as much as I LOVE all the SL glass, zooms and primes, the Sony system checks all the boxes.
I use my m10r 98% of the time because I really enjoy the process of creating images with it. I don't really use an AF body in the same fashion, so, for a lot less investment I can have a more capable 2%'er.
That said, if I wanted to keep 30K invested in glass for the SL system, I could, just seemed like a waste since I hardly use it...Anyways...I say, shoot the m all the time for enjoyment and keep the Sony system
