fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1              3       end
  

Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?

  
 
horus__
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


I have been shooting with an SL2-S for a little while now and I am very pleased with it. I have found that the weight of the body is not an issue; rather, for me, awkwardness in carrying stems from lenses. With a VM Nokton 50/1.2 and VM Skopar 28/2.8 on the side, it's a beautifully elegant system that is pleasant to carry. Although the same could be said for any other mirrorless system with M lenses.

Other things I like:

- ISO noise rendering is excellent. Monochrome and smooth; almost like film grain. I haven't been in any situations that demanded more than 6400 ISO (thanks to the Nokton) but at this speed, noise is very inoffensive.

- The on/off switch is a great plus for this particular model and it's a shame they went back to the goofy power button on the SL3. I don't care how well it 'just works', this isn't a point and shoot.

- The SL2-S is now priced at $2500 (open box, unused) at the Leica store.

- Excellent handling. The EVF is great, the controls stay out of your way. The only time I menu dive in the field is to change my Auto ISO settings (min shutter speed) and lens profiles (mapped to a function button).

For me, the decision came down to a Z5ii or an SL2-S. Since my intention was to primarily use small M-mount primes, and I got a good deal on the Leica (with some adapters thrown in for free), I went that way. Now I'm on the hunt for a maximally compact second body, and luckily the Sigma fp is also L-mount.

zeitlos wrote:
I have voices telling me: But the Sony is better. True.


You sure about that one? Sony is notorious for poor construction, poor colors, and a mount too small for full frame. They're a consumer electronics company, not a camera company.

And when it comes to adapting M lenses, there's really only one other competitor, that being Nikon Z, which reportedly also has a very thin sensor cover stack (comparable to SL, or so I've heard).

Fred Miranda wrote:
The SL sensor stack is not as thin as the Leica M's, but it still handles wide angle lenses surprisingly well and comes very close in performance.


As an aside, it would be good if somebody with the gear could do a visual edge smearing comparison between the SL2 and Z7ii (being the most on-par comparison pair at the moment, as the Z7s also lack the AA filter). Thus far I haven't seen any actual evidence to the statement that SL is really the best after M, though it's clearly good enough.





Jun 25, 2025 at 04:31 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


horus__ wrote:
As an aside, it would be good if somebody with the gear could do a visual edge smearing comparison between the SL2 and Z7ii (being the most on-par comparison pair at the moment, as the Z7s also lack the AA filter). Thus far I haven't seen any actual evidence to the statement that SL is really the best after M, though it's clearly good enough.


Has anyone actually tested this, or is it just based on anecdotal reports? I do not have a Nikon Z body to test myself, but it would be great to know if the claims about the Nikon Z sensor being as thin as Leica’s are true. The only thing I can confirm is that the Leica SL sensor is indeed almost as thin.



Jun 25, 2025 at 05:19 PM
mikegao
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?




As an aside, it would be good if somebody with the gear could do a visual edge smearing comparison between the SL2 and Z7ii (being the most on-par comparison pair at the moment, as the Z7s also lack the AA filter). Thus far I haven't seen any actual evidence to the statement that SL is really the best after M, though it's clearly good enough.



I don't have a direct comparison between Z7ii vs SL2, but I have compare Nikon Z8 vs M10 monochrom, using an Olympus 35mm f2 lens. At f2, the M10m is noticeably sharper (and this is center performance)
nikon_z8_vs_m10m_oly_35f2 by mikeapexi, on Flickr

Of course, this is an absurd comparison, no one will use $5k camera with $200 lenses. However, recently I got a chance to convert a Contax G 21mm f2.8 and Contax G 28mm f2.8 lens to m-mount. The difference in edge performance between my Z8 and m11p is quite "profound". On Z8, I have to stop to f8 to get decent edge performance, but on m11p, it is ok at f2.8.

Does anyone know how well the Contax G 21mm f2.8 and 28mm f2.8 perform on the SL series of camera? Also, will the SL perform better than SL2 for legacy lenses (I remember someone mention SL is very good for legacy lenses, but not sure if SL2 is equally good).



Jun 25, 2025 at 05:21 PM
1bwana1
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


mikegao wrote:
I don't have a direct comparison between Z7ii vs SL2, but I have compare Nikon Z8 vs M10 monochrom, using an Olympus 35mm f2 lens. At f2, the M10m is noticeably sharper (and this is center performance)
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54262644160_fe076ed6e5_k.jpgnikon_z8_vs_m10m_oly_35f2 by mikeapexi, on Flickr

Of course, this is an absurd comparison, no one will use $5k camera with $200 lenses. However, recently I got a chance to convert a Contax G 21mm f2.8 and Contax G 28mm f2.8 lens to m-mount. The difference in edge performance between my Z8 and m11p is quite "profound". On Z8, I have to stop to f8 to get
...Show more


The best platform to shoot M lenses is an M camera, followed by an SL camera. If you want to see the best edge to edge performance from a Full Frame camera shoot a Leica SL3 with the Leica 35mm APO-Summicron SL. Peter Carbe claims it is the best full frame lens ever made. The full Leica APO-Summicron SL lenses are each the best in their respective focal lengths. For me, even pixel peeping I have trouble identifying a difference from the 35mm except of course the very wide ones. However, they are all spectacular.

I just spent the afternoon shooting a couples portrait session for some friends (both also photographers). She is about to start Chemo next week so wanted some good portraits. I used my SL3 and the 90mm APO-Summicron SL and it is a joy to shoot was such near perfect equipment. Fully manual except Face/Eye AF, tethered to LightRoom, 3 lights with a Godox X3 trigger. I have a User Profile for this setup in the SL3. One button setup, and everything just worked. This is a use case where the SL3 is an extremely strong system.



Jun 25, 2025 at 05:55 PM
LBJ2
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


In addition to a relatively thin sensor stack, Leica also designs offset and angled micro-lenses to improve compatibility for their M lenses on their SL cameras. I suspect the specialized micro-lenses are probably the more important component for M lens compatibility on the SL cameras particularly for the wide/wider M lenses.


Jun 25, 2025 at 06:46 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


LBJ2 wrote:
In addition to a relatively thin sensor stack, Leica also designs offset and angled micro-lenses to improve compatibility for their M lenses on their SL cameras. I suspect the specialized micro-lenses are probably the more important component for M lens compatibility on the SL cameras particularly for the wide/wider M lenses.


I don't think that's the case anymore. With the introduction of BSI, sensor design has improved to the point where thickness plays a bigger role than micro-lens design alone. You can take a Sony sensor, which has a much thicker stack, and convert it to match Leica's thin stack, and it will perform just like a Leica M. A good example is the Kolari-modified A7CR compared to the M11. Both show the same off-axis performance with wide-angle lenses...actually, with all M lenses.



Jun 25, 2025 at 06:56 PM
horus__
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


Fred Miranda wrote:
Has anyone actually tested this, or is it just based on anecdotal reports? I do not have a Nikon Z body to test myself, but it would be great to know if the claims about the Nikon Z sensor being as thin as Leica’s are true. The only thing I can confirm is that the Leica SL sensor is indeed almost as thin.


Kolari found the removeable sensor glass in the Z7 to be 1.1mm.
Although somebody in this DPReview thread claims it's really 2.3mm when you include the non-removeable glass cover.

It doesn't really matter, as all we need is a solid visual comparison between an SL2 and a Z7 or Z7ii using any M lens known for edge smearing when adapted (or any wide-angle M lens in general). The only remotely similar comparison I have found online is Sony vs SL with the CV 58 1.4. Although the difference is very clearly in favor of the SL, this is an SLR lens, so the comparison is slightly less relevant (and only confirms what we already know, that being that Sony sucks for this)

mikegao wrote:
I don't have a direct comparison between Z7ii vs SL2, but I have compare Nikon Z8 vs M10 monochrom, using an Olympus 35mm f2 lens. At f2, the M10m is noticeably sharper (and this is center performance)


Since this is an SLR lens and you're measuring center performance, I think the difference is mostly going to be up to the AA filter/lack thereof.




View previous versions



Jun 25, 2025 at 06:59 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


mikegao wrote:
I don't have a direct comparison between Z7ii vs SL2, but I have compare Nikon Z8 vs M10 monochrom, using an Olympus 35mm f2 lens. At f2, the M10m is noticeably sharper (and this is center performance)
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54262644160_fe076ed6e5_k.jpgnikon_z8_vs_m10m_oly_35f2 by mikeapexi, on Flickr

Of course, this is an absurd comparison, no one will use $5k camera with $200 lenses. However, recently I got a chance to convert a Contax G 21mm f2.8 and Contax G 28mm f2.8 lens to m-mount. The difference in edge performance between my Z8 and m11p is quite "profound". On Z8, I have to stop to f8 to get
...Show more

Center performance should not be affected at all by sensor thickness, since light hits the sensor nearly straight on in that area. If you're seeing a difference in sharpness or contrast in the center, it's more likely due to the presence of an anti-aliasing filter rather than the sensor stack itself.

Your experience testing the Contax 21mm f/2.8 on both the Z8 and the M11-P, and getting better results on the Leica, really suggests that the idea of Nikon sensors being especially friendly with M-mount lenses might be more myth than reality. Still, it's another anecdotal report, so it would be great to see more testing to confirm it.



Jun 25, 2025 at 07:00 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


horus__ wrote:
Kolari found the removeable sensor glass in the Z7 to be 1.1mm.
Although somebody in this DPReview thread claims it's really 2.3mm when you include the non-removeable glass cover.

It doesn't really matter, as all we need is a solid visual comparison between an SL2 and a Z7 or Z7ii using any M lens known for edge smearing when adapted (or any wide-angle M lens in general). The only remotely similar comparison I have found online is Sony vs SL with the CV 58 1.4. Although the difference is very clearly in favor of the SL, this is an SLR lens, so
...Show more

Kolari got this wrong. Their calculation doesn't seem accurate and only adds to the confusion online. You can even reach out to them directly if you want to double-check.

The real proof will come from a side-by-side test. If someone has fast wide M-mount lens and both an M camera and a Nikon Z body, they could run a simple comparison for us. Just shoot at infinity focus, focus at center, and compare the mid-zone and corners. Thicker sensor stacks usually introduce more field curvature and add off-axis astigmatism, so the differences should be easy to spot.




Jun 25, 2025 at 07:03 PM
LBJ2
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


Fred Miranda wrote:
I don't think that's the case anymore. With the introduction of BSI, sensor design has improved to the point where thickness plays a bigger role than micro-lens design alone. You can take a Sony sensor, which has a much thicker stack, and convert it to match Leica's thin stack, and it will perform just like a Leica M. A good example is the Kolari-modified A7CR compared to the M11. Both show the same off-axis performance with wide-angle lenses...actually, with all M lenses.


I don't disagree. I am confident you are very pleased with the Kolari mod results on your BSI Sony camera w/ M lenses even though the Kolari mod on the Sony camera does not include Leica specialized micro-lenses.

In general, Leica specialized sensor micro-lenses probably do have more light channeling impact on Non-BSI sensors compared to BSI sensors.

According to Google AI 😉 😉:

"While BSI sensors improve the overall performance of Leica M lenses by making the sensor more receptive to angled light, they don't completely eliminate the need for microlenses, especially considering the design of some M lenses. The BSI design simply makes the sensor more efficient and less reliant on the channeling function of the microlenses. "

OTOH, and FWIW, when I have compared the widest Leica M lens I own, the Summilux-M 24 F1,4 deep corner IQ is surprising similar when comparing this lens on the Leica BSI M11 and adapted to the Leica Non-BSI SL2 camera when uploaded to LRC. While my experience in this case is a limited test case of one person and only one Leica M lens, I have a feeling the specialized micro-lenses are the reason for the similarity between a BSI and Non BSI results...which is why I suspect the micro-lenses might have more impact than just a thinner sensor stack--but of course I don't know for certain and results probably vary on different wide Leica M lenses.



Jun 26, 2025 at 12:33 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


Fred Miranda wrote:
Center performance should not be affected at all by sensor thickness, since light hits the sensor nearly straight on in that area. If you're seeing a difference in sharpness or contrast in the center, it's more likely due to the presence of an anti-aliasing filter rather than the sensor stack itself.



I have experienced issues with center sharpness when adapting the Leica 35/2.0 ASPH version I on my unmodified Sony A7R in the past. Most severe focus distortions I have observed with any M-lens adapted to the A7R sensor. Not only unsharp corners but also blurry center independent on the used aperture! The image got sharper towards the middle and then fell off again to the corners. Another online reviewer who tested the same lens on the A7 confirmed exactly my observations independently. If this would have been caused by the anti-alias filter, I would have seen this phenomena on other M/LTM lenses adapted to the A7R, too but I didn't.



Jun 26, 2025 at 12:45 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


LBJ2 wrote:
I don't disagree. I am confident you are very pleased with the Kolari mod results on your BSI Sony camera w/ M lenses even though the Kolari mod on the Sony camera does not include Leica specialized micro-lenses.

In general, Leica specialized sensor micro-lenses probably do have more light channeling impact on Non-BSI sensors compared to BSI sensors.

According to Google AI 😉 😉:

"While BSI sensors improve the overall performance of Leica M lenses by making the sensor more receptive to angled light, they don't completely eliminate the need for microlenses, especially considering the design of some M lenses. The
...Show more

I've actually been getting slightly better corner performance from the A7CR Kolari compared to the M11 with problematic lenses (not telecentric lens designs) which makes me think microlenses might not even be used anymore, or at least not needed the way they once were.. I know that might sound surprising, but it's what I've seen in my own testing. Since both use the same MP sensor and don't have AA filters, that kind of result carries more weight for me than what any write-up or AI might say.



Jun 26, 2025 at 01:45 PM
LBJ2
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


Fred Miranda wrote:
I've actually been getting slightly better corner performance from the A7CR Kolari compared to the M11. I know that might sound surprising, but it's what I've seen in my own testing. Since both use the same MP sensor and don't have AA filters, that kind of result carries more weight for me than what any write-up or AI might say.


If Fred Miranda says he is getting better corner performance from the Sony A7CR Kolari mod compared to the Leica M11, I don't doubt it. Your lens scrutiny/comparison skills and presentations are very well known and respected Fred!

BTW, what M lenses are you comparing in this scenario?



Jun 26, 2025 at 01:50 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


LBJ2 wrote:
If Fred Miranda says he is getting better corner performance from the Sony A7CR Kolari mod compared to the Leica M11, I don't doubt it. Your lens scrutiny/comparison skills and presentations are very well known and respected Fred!

BTW, what M lenses are you comparing in this scenario?


Given the weight you placed on my comment, I should probably admit that the 'slightly better' remark was a bit of hyperbole. So feel free to stop the press on that one.

That said, the main point still stands. The A7CR Kolari hasn't degraded the off-axis IQ of any M-mount lens I've tested...and I've tried quite a few challenging ones, mostly fast wides and normal lenses. That's what led me to think that the old reliance on offset microlenses (since the Sony does not have this) for handling steep ray angles may have been replaced by something just as effective in newer sensors. I'm fairly sure the "slightly better" result came from one of my Voigtlander 28mm reviews, where I compared the lens on both cameras and was genuinely surprised. Though honestly, I can't recall exactly which lens it was.



Jun 26, 2025 at 02:24 PM
hanay78
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


My two cents

I was trying once a Kolari modded A7rii with slow vm lenses, 21 f4, 35 f2.8. At the same time, the owner also had a m10. I intended to use these lenses at f8, and wanted to decide if i will get my camera modded. It was lovely to be able to do such first hand comparison. Thanks

My conclussion was: a) at f8 and above it was not worth to modify the camera for these lenses. The quality difference stock-modded sony did not justify the investment IMHO; b) Very probably the problem lied in the lenses which showed their age and or limited quality. Maybe Kolari is more interesting for fast lenses ?; c) I liked the objectives more on the m10, even with less resolution (24 megpixels) but i had the impression that it was not worth to get an m10 for these lenses; d) the best path for me was to resell the lenses; e) the leica handled the highlights in my opinion worser than the sony.

These are not general conclusions. Just restricted to one camera and set of lenses. And i am not qualified, just an entusiast that wanted to carry a light camera.

I wanted them for hicking. Since then i wondered how the SL would handle zm 21/4.5, zm 28/2.8, zm 35/2.8. I use filters all the time, so maybe the rangefider is not advantageous.



Jun 27, 2025 at 01:12 AM
old-gregg
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


joakim wrote:
I also like the colours it produces.


This myth really needs to die. Sony makes the sensor. Adobe makes the DCP profile for it. Those two components define the colors you see. Leica has absolutely nothing to do with the colors. In fact, it says right there in the top right corner in Lightroom: "Adobe color".



Jun 28, 2025 at 04:42 PM
zeitlos
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


old-gregg wrote:
This myth really needs to die. Sony makes the sensor. Adobe makes the DCP profile for it. Those two components define the colors you see. Leica has absolutely nothing to do with the colors. In fact, it says right there in the top right corner in Lightroom: "Adobe color".


I'm certainly no technical expert. Apparently, you are. Can you explain why each point is incorrect? Will help a lot of people understand. Maybe in a new thread so this one is not going too much off-topic in the end? Would be interesting (at least to a certain extent).

AI answer to your statement.


“Yes, there **can be differences** in color rendering between a Leica camera and a Sony camera **even if they both use a Sony-made sensor**, and **even when using Adobe's color profiles in Lightroom**. The differences in RAW color can be subtle or significant, depending on a few technical factors.

Here’s a breakdown of why:

---

### ✅ **1. Same sensor ≠ same image**

Just because Leica uses a Sony-manufactured sensor doesn’t mean the image from a Leica and a Sony camera will look the same. The **sensor is just one part** of the imaging pipeline.

---

### ✅ **2. Raw data is influenced by camera internals**

The RAW file may be "raw", but it’s still **processed up to a point in-camera** before being written to the file. This includes:

* **Analog signal path**: Before the sensor signal is digitized, it goes through **analog circuitry**, such as amplifiers and ADCs (Analog-to-Digital Converters), which vary by manufacturer and design.
* **Micro-lens array and optical filter stack (OLPF)**: Leica and Sony may use **different micro-lenses or glass filters** (IR filter, anti-aliasing filter, UV cut), which affect how light is focused onto the sensor’s photodiodes.
* **Color filter array (CFA)**: Most sensors use a Bayer CFA, but **not all Bayer filters are equal**—the dyes used for the R/G/B filters can vary subtly in their spectral response. Leica could spec a slightly different CFA design or dyes than Sony does.

---

### ✅ **3. Demosaicing and camera calibration**

When converting RAW files (whether in-camera for JPEGs or later in Lightroom), the software has to:

* Interpret the CFA data
* Apply **white balance**
* Translate the raw sensor values into visible color (XYZ, Lab, or sRGB/AdobeRGB)

This involves **camera-specific calibration matrices** and **tone curves**, some of which are embedded in the RAW file’s metadata and used by Lightroom—even with Adobe Color profiles.

Adobe’s color profiles (like “Adobe Color”, “Adobe Portrait”, etc.) are **custom-made per camera model**. So, **a Leica Q3 and a Sony A7R V will have different Adobe Color profiles**, even though both come from Adobe. This preserves their respective “brand looks.”

---

### ✅ **4. Leica’s look is partly in the RAW**

While Leica’s **iconic color science** is most visible in their JPEG output (especially on M cameras), their **RAW files still reflect** a certain aesthetic due to:

* Unique CFA tuning
* Leica’s own sensor tuning and analog signal path
* Camera-specific calibration metadata embedded in the DNG (if DNG is used)

---

### ✅ **5. DNG vs. ARW**

Leica cameras typically use **DNG**, which is an open RAW format, while Sony uses **ARW**, a proprietary format. The DNG may offer **more consistent metadata handling** in third-party tools like Lightroom, and it sometimes makes color handling more “predictable.” But even here, Adobe applies **per-camera tuning**.

---

### 🧪 Summary (technical view)

| Component | Same between Leica & Sony? | Influences Color? |
| -------------------------------- | -------------------------- | ----------------- |
| Sensor Silicon | Maybe | ✔️ Somewhat |
| CFA Dye & Pattern | Possibly different | ✔️ Strongly |
| IR/AA filters | Probably different | ✔️ Strongly |
| Analog electronics | Different | ✔️ Strongly |
| Firmware (demosaic, calibration) | Different | ✔️ Strongly |
| RAW file metadata | Different | ✔️ Strongly |
| Adobe Profile | Per-camera | ✔️ Strongly |

---

### ✅ Conclusion

Even if Leica and Sony use the **same sensor silicon**, **RAW color can differ**—and often **does**—due to different **optical filters, analog signal paths, CFA dye response, and firmware calibration**. The **RAW color from Leica tends to have a different tonal and chromatic balance**, even before you apply any profile.

So yes: there is and can be a difference in RAW color.“






Jun 28, 2025 at 04:50 PM
old-gregg
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


@zeitlos The AI isn't wrong when it carefully frames that the colors **might** be different, but they aren't. First, everyone now uses more or less the same color arrays with similar spectral spikes. Second, the analog portion of signal processing is now done on-sensor these days, i.e. by Sony. There isn't much opportunity (or reason) for Leica to mess with it. But most importantly, all those microscopic difference in signal processing are trivially equalized in the DCP profile. You can see it for yourself: purchase a nice quality color target and profiling software and make yourself two identical looking DCP profiles: one for Leica and one for Sony. The difference in color people see is usually explained by:

- Difference in auto-WB implementation.
- Slight variations of Adobe DCP profiles across brands. This is why studio product photographers, for whom color accuracy is critical, make their own profiles.

If you want to see Sony/Color/Nikon/Leica color science, you need to shoot JPEG or use their native RAW converters. If you're in Lightroom, you're getting Adobe Color for all brands.



Jun 28, 2025 at 04:58 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


old-gregg wrote:
This myth really needs to die. Sony makes the sensor. Adobe makes the DCP profile for it. Those two components define the colors you see. Leica has absolutely nothing to do with the colors. In fact, it says right there in the top right corner in Lightroom: "Adobe color".


Just keep in mind that Sony does not make all of the sensors used in the Leica SL's. The Leica SL2's 47.3-megapixel sensor was made by TowerJazz not Sony. I'm not sure about all of the other models though I'm fairly confident that the 60MP SL3 sensor is made by Sony.

Edit: from Google AI:

The 47-megapixel sensor used in the Leica SL2 camera was produced by TowerJazz for Panasonic. It is the same sensor used in the Panasonic S1R.

The sensor in the Leica SL (the predecessor to the SL2) was designed by TowerJazz and made by STMicroelectronics.

STMicroelectronics also produces other CMOS image sensors for various applications, including automotive and industrial vision systems.

Key points:

Leica SL2 sensor: TowerJazz produced the 47MP sensor for Panasonic which is used in the SL2.
Leica SL sensor: Designed by TowerJazz and made by STMicroelectronics.
STMicroelectronics: Manufacturer of various CMOS image sensors.

Edited on Jun 28, 2025 at 06:03 PM · View previous versions



Jun 28, 2025 at 05:50 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · Reasons to LIKE the Leica SL system?


Tariq Gibran wrote:
Just keep in mind that Sony does not make all of the sensors used in the Leica SL's. The Leica SL2's 47.3-megapixel sensor was designed by TowerJazz and manufactured by STMicroelectronics, not Sony. I'm not sure about all of the other models though I'm fairly confident that the 60MP SL3 sensor is made by Sony.


That seems right. I believe Leica's partnership with Sony on sensors began with the 60MP sensor that was first introduced in the Sony A7R IV. All previous Leica full frame cameras do not use Sony sensors, including the 40MP M10-M and M10-R.



Jun 28, 2025 at 06:02 PM
1              3       end






FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1              3       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account