RustyBug Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
1bwana1 wrote:
Leaving aside form factor for me the SL3 provides a far superior M lens shooting experience. This is the result of a vastly superior EVF in terms of size, brightness, clarity, and visual resolution. IBIS provides a much more stable EVF experience as well as the ability to shoot at lower ISO for visibly better IQ in DR and noise in many circumstances. It also makes hand held shooting a 60mpx sensor more likely to result in sharper image. The better control layout and more programmable controls makes the haptics noticably better as well.
All of those advantages together makes for better results and a better shooting experience. Plus you then get the option for AF when wanted. Use small Sigma primes and you get a better experience than Q cameras and can swap focal lengths Q3 28 and Q3 43 in one package. Finaly, you also get the ability to shoot the APO-SL primes when you want the best FF IQ available. They are visibly better than any FF lenses made by any other manufacturer.
With the new 4.0 firmware the SL3 has evolved into a very compelling platform for super high IQ photography.
...Show more →
I've long indicated that the SL platform is a very versatile one.
It'll never be the "best" at anything, except maybe being the "best" at everything. That meaning it isn't the best for M lenses. Nor, is it the best AF. But, it is the best for M and AF combined, and is certainly better weather sealed than an M.
I'm only on the SL2-S and have been waffling for the SL3 vs. SL3-S, so the recent AF firmware gains have my attention.
Is the SL platform the best M body experience ... nope. But, is it a good well rounded experience, yup.
Imo, the SL platform is more like a Summicron lens ... superb all-rounder. The M platform is more like a Summilux or Noctilux. There are more tradeoffs (i.e. no IBIS, etc.), and a bit more demanding in use. But when it comes together, and those demands are well-harnessed ... it is "different" in a way that folks find it to be "special" to them.
The M-EV1 (haven't used) seems destined to sit between the two. Maybe preferable to the Visoflex (except for the angle viewer when that is desired).
If I had to pick ONLY ONE camera body ... it would be an SL ... and (to Steve's point) I can load it with M's or SL's glass of all manner. Currently, I've got my Elmarit M 24 / 2.8 .... through the M APO 135/3.4 ... on up to the Siggy 500 / 5.6. Small primes, big tele's, versatile zooms, etc. Yeah, it's versatile, and while the "penalty" of not being an M body (cover glass difference) / form factor / etc. is there (to a degree), there is nothing about the SL that would restrict me so much that I MUST use an M instead.
That said, I've always maintained that the best optical performance of an M lens is on an M body ... including the elliptical microlenses, etc. And, with an M, I get a threaded cable release option that isn't in the SL.
But, I still find the SL platform to be the most versatile (with its micro-penalties) of all.
What does that have to do with the M-EV1 directly ... not much, really. Just some perspective on where the M > EV1 > Q > SL lands the EV1, does include some perspective on the M / Q / SL.
Right now, I've got one SL, two M's and one Q ... all are different, yet all share some kindred aspects, too.
I figure the EV1 (no experience with, yet) slots among them.
YMMV

|