I had been eyeing a digital body that I can use as a dedicated legacy lens platform. The reason being, I had been using my Leica m11p for some of my legacy lenses with a visoflex, and noticed there is an improvement in picture quality over my Nikon Z8. But, the visoflex won't let me magnify beyond 100% and quite a bit of lag in use. I am hoping to have a digital body that has a very good EVF and is optimized for legacy lenses, just like my digital M.
The Leica SL fit most of the criteria (except for IBIS) and the price is almost the same as a Nikon ZF now. But, for a few hundred dollars more, I can also get an SL2, which has IBIS and more resolution. I don't know how much the Nikon Z8 is lack behind on the sensor optimization part (for legacy lenses), compared to the Leica SL series. For the price of a SL2, I can also buy a Sony A7r iv and have Kolari to convert to thin cover glass. The Sony will also be lighter as well.
I will love to hear your thought on this. Or am I just crazy.
I had been eyeing a digital body that I can use as a dedicated legacy lens platform. The reason being, I had been using my Leica m11p for some of my legacy lenses with a visoflex, and noticed there is an improvement in picture quality over my Nikon Z8. But, the visoflex won't let me magnify beyond 100% and quite a bit of lag in use. I am hoping to have a digital body that has a very good EVF and is optimized for legacy lenses, just like my digital M.
The Leica SL fit most of the criteria (except for IBIS) and the price is almost the same as a Nikon ZF now. But, for a few hundred dollars more, I can also get an SL2, which has IBIS and more resolution. I don't know how much the Nikon Z8 is lack behind on the sensor optimization part (for legacy lenses), compared to the Leica SL series. For the price of a SL2, I can also buy a Sony A7r iv and have Kolari to convert to thin cover glass. The Sony will also be lighter as well.
I will love to hear your thought on this. Or am I just crazy....Show more →
It comes down to personal preference, price, and lens environment. Couple things to answer:
+ You can wait for Leica to release the rumored Leica M-V which is an EVF-based Leica M where the EVF replaces the rangefinder. It will likely be equipped with M- and not L-mount which is advantageous to ensure full M-lens compatibility without usage of adapter. Means no AF option and very likely also no video option - Leica might use this to differentiate itself from the SL series. Main con: its future introduction price.
+ Nikon Zf: seems to be one of the best third party options to adapt M lenses. Performance seems similarly good compared to mounting M- lenses on the SL with adapter. Advantage: price and being able to use Nikkor glass, too.
+ Sony E-mount: Sony has the most menu options in their E-mount series cameras which some like others don't. Feel of Sony cameras is lighter weight but ergonomics fit some others dislike the design. Main con: as you mentioned, it requires Kolari sensor modification to allow best M-lens compatibility with adapter due to its thicker original sensor stack. Sony was in the past > 10 years ago the best EVF-based option to use with third party lenses, but now Nikon with its Zf camera has definitely topped Sony in this segment by using a thin sensor stack as Leica does in its M cameras.
+ Leica SL series: advantages already mentioned earlier, main con: camera bulkiness and still more pricier than other similar MLC models on the market. Good performance with adapted M glass is a positive - but the camera is mainly made to be used with AF-based bulkier L-lenses. If L-lens glass is considered and M-lenses are used in parallel, the SL series is probably the best option to move forward. If M-lenses are the only lens option used, I would look at bullet points one or two made in this comment instead.
One of the main advantages of the SL line is IBIS, and unfortunately, the original SL Typ 601 does not have it. It's definitely a solid camera with a great EVF and sensor, but for many, that missing feature could be a dealbreaker. Prices for the SL2 and SL2-S have come down quite a bit, and they would be my top recommendation if you’re looking for a used SL. Remember, the lenses are not cheap, especially the APO primes.
Fred Miranda wrote:
One of the main advantages of the SL line is IBIS, and unfortunately, the original SL Typ 601 does not have it. It's definitely a solid camera with a great EVF and sensor, but for many, that missing feature could be a dealbreaker. Prices for the SL2 and SL2-S have come down quite a bit, and they would be my top recommendation if you’re looking for a used SL. Remember, the lenses are not cheap, especially the APO primes.
I didn't mention IBIS difference between cameras in my earlier comment because coming from the M-series, I find it not a must-to-have in focal lengths shorter than 75 mm. On a higher resolution FF sensor it is definitely a benefit, I agree. That's why I personally find 24 to 36 MP FF resolution nearly ideal to be used handheld without need for IBIS even down to 1/15 sec exposure time. The Nikon Zf with 24 MP has therefore less of need for IBIS, too. As I said earlier, the SL has a much larger camera body than M-cameras, and combine this with hefty and bulkier L-lenses - yes, IBIS is a clear plus here as you mentioned.
If I would eye a MLC with EVF to use with my M-lenses without any further sensor conversion needs, I would definitely consider the Nikon Zf as one top performer.
I have a Kolari UT modified Sony A7Riv that I use exclusively with film camera legacy lenses. As far as I know, this setup has the highest image quality as it has the thinnest sensor cover. The downside is an erratic white balance behavior. Other than that, I have had no issues with the set-up.
The Nikon sensor glass is significantly thicker, and (based on everything I have seen) will have (slightly) worse corner performance with problematic lenses. Whether this degradation outweighs any of the Nikon's advantages is a different issue.
Personally, I would not get the SL due to its lack of IBIS. Manual focusing with telephoto lenses and the EVF fully magnified is a bit of nightmare, at least for me.
Thank you very much, retrofocus and Fred, for your thoughtful and detailed explanation!
I owned the ZF before. For some reason, that camera doesn't warm to me. It's like the Nikon DF, I owned the camera twice and sold it twice. I could never able to use the focus rangefinder of that camera to nail focus. The Nikon ZF biggest flaw for me is it won't engage subject detection with non-chipped lens and look odd when adapter SLR lenses to it (the adapter extension tube look too long). For my Nikon 58mm f1.2 Noct, I often use a F to Sony E adapter then attach a Neewer E to Z adapter, then the subject detection will engage, but I will lost exif info of the lens. I later found that if the EVF resolution is high enough, then using the EVF's simmering/flickering of the subject edge is a much faster way to find focus. I shoot primary my daughter's growing up, so I set a minimum shutter speed of 1/125" for my camera. IBIS is less important to me.
Unfortunately to me, I am a bit of a Nikon fanboy, so I will eventually re-buying the ZF again.....
I'm a long time Nikon shooter and started with the FTn. Bought an M8.2 to rekindle the love I had for my M4, and acquired a set of M lenses as I updated to newer M bodies. When Nikon began to transition to mirrorles I bought a Z6 and a couple of Z lenses. I quickly realized that I would not be happy using my F mount glass on a Z body as I disliked the FTZ adapter and the Z lenses were noticeably better. Since I would be buying all new glass, my quandry was whether to stay with Nikon or try the Leica SL series.
I bought a used SL and 24-90 zoom to find out. I was very impressed with the SL and quickly added the Leica M to L adapter. I have experienced excellent results with the M lenses on the SL. Initially I was worried that my wide angle lenses would be noticeably soft in the corners. I took a series of shots with my 21mm Elmarit-M and 24mm Elmarit-M on both my M240 and SL. I found very little difference and certainly none that would be noticed in my images. I know from Sean Reid's testing on test targets that there is a difference, but my shots set my mind at ease. Interestingly the 21mm Elmarit-M was the least affected of the two. While some of my smaller M lenses look a bit out of place, my Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f1.1 looks like it belongs there and handles nicely. Occassionally I use some of my F mount primes. I also have the Noct-Nikkor 58mm f1.2 and love how the SL renders it's images.
Be warned, the SL can be a gateway drug into the SL system. Mine now has SL2 and SL2-S siblings as well as a host of Leica SL lenses.
I'd go for the SL2 if I were interested in L-mount lenses (and there are plenty in which to be interested from Leica, Sigma, and Panasonic). It would not be my default choice for adapting lenses. It's still pricey for what you get, and doesn't offer many advantages for adapting beyond correction profiles for their pricey lenses.
I wouldn't worry about IBIS differences between manufacturers unless you eventually hope to use native mount lenses. All manufactures limit adapted lenses to 3-axis. That would be a very easy fix for Leica (and help justify the ridiculous price of their M-Adapter-L). They could very easily add an RF receptor to the lens-side mount and the same kind of electronics that Cosina uses to communicate distance on their MF lenses to get 5-axis with the M lenses. Anyway, you're stuck at 3-axis, and that isn't vastly different among any of the manufacturers.
Have you considered the z7? It's got a nice EVF, good build, familiar UI, and I believe can use the z8's batteries (I don't know if the reverse is true). A Kolari mod on that could be beautiful, plus you've got every adaptation option open to either Leica or Sony. It's not as exciting as something new and different, but it could have you up and happily shooting a lot faster.
Otherwise, I'd look to Sony, and it sounds like the rIV may be the one for you. Personally, I'd go rIII. The EVF's not as good, but I think the sensor's easier to work with. I'm in the minority in this way of thinking these days, but I don't see the point in putting the average legacy lens on the resolution monster. It's not that they look bad, and you still get more color information, but you don't get much of a bump in fine detail. I also probably have an unreasonable fondness for the 42MP sensor, so take that into account.
I ended up with the Nikon Z6III after trying the SL2-s and the Nikon Zf. I also have the M11 with Visoflex.
The only thing that kept me from sticking with the SL was the size and weight. The SL3 would be a bit better in that regard, but I’m not willing to pay Leica prices for a camera that’s otherwise not on par with the much cheaper competition. So, maybe when the SL3 has come down as far in price as the SL and SL2 have.
Even then, though, the Nikon implementation is pretty awesome.
Have you considered the z7? It's got a nice EVF, good build, familiar UI, and I believe can use the z8's batteries (I don't know if the reverse is true). A Kolari mod on that could be beautiful, plus you've got every adaptation option open to either Leica or Sony. It's not as exciting as something new and different, but it could have you up and happily shooting a lot faster.
I had seriously thought about the Nikon Z7 for some time. It can be had for under $1k now. I am considering A7 riv is because the EVF has higher resolution. So, as an "ultimate" legacy lens adaption machine, it is fancier but I definitely will spend more to get there. The Nikon Z7 default is already coping very well with vintage lenses.
I had been eyeing a digital body that I can use as a dedicated legacy lens platform. The reason being, I had been using my Leica m11p for some of my legacy lenses with a visoflex, and noticed there is an improvement in picture quality over my Nikon Z8. But, the visoflex won't let me magnify beyond 100% and quite a bit of lag in use. I am hoping to have a digital body that has a very good EVF and is optimized for legacy lenses, just like my digital M.
The Leica SL fit most of the criteria (except for IBIS) and the price is almost the same as a Nikon ZF now. But, for a few hundred dollars more, I can also get an SL2, which has IBIS and more resolution. I don't know how much the Nikon Z8 is lack behind on the sensor optimization part (for legacy lenses), compared to the Leica SL series. For the price of a SL2, I can also buy a Sony A7r iv and have Kolari to convert to thin cover glass. The Sony will also be lighter as well.
I will love to hear your thought on this. Or am I just crazy....Show more →
You wrote: "...the visoflex won't let me magnify beyond 100%"
Have you tried the Digital Zoom feature in the camera's menu 1.3x or 1.8x? This Digital Zoom feature can also be used with the Visoflex 2.
Be warned, the SL can be a gateway drug into the SL system. Mine now has SL2 and SL2-S siblings as well as a host of Leica SL lenses.
Yep, so true. A few months ago I picked up a used SL to use all my old lenses I've been using adapted on Canon DSLR's for years. My aging eyes were having problems with manually focusing the lenses.
The wonderful EVF on the SL solved that problem immediately and the ability to zoom in made it even better.
But.....
Then I just had to try a 24-90 and all I can say is WOW! Best zoom I've ever used. So of course than I had to pick up a 90-280, more wow!
Now I wonder how long it will be before a newer SL body winds up in my hands. The SL has been my primary camera since getting it even though my Canon 5DSR has what should be superior specs
The only negative thing I can say about the SL gear is the weight. I'm still recovering from rotator cuff surgery and using this stuff can sure make the shoulder hurt after awhile. But the pain is oh so worth it!
retrofocus wrote:
+ You can wait for Leica to release the rumored Leica M-V which is an EVF-based Leica M where the EVF replaces the rangefinder. It will likely be equipped with M- and not L-mount which is advantageous to ensure full M-lens compatibility without usage of adapter. Means no AF option and very likely also no video option - Leica might use this to differentiate itself from the SL series. Main con: its future introduction price.
Just saw my own reply from June this year - my prediction was spot on just the name changed
I've used the Nikon Z6, Sony A7C, and Leica M (240 and 262) and with wide retro focus rangefinder lenses the Z6 was comparable to the Leica (BSI helps). The Sony was pretty bad with the wides but did ok with SLR glass.
I would love to go Kolari UT one day but probably on a Nikon as I prefer their control and menu layout.
I had been eyeing a digital body that I can use as a dedicated legacy lens platform. The reason being, I had been using my Leica m11p for some of my legacy lenses with a visoflex, and noticed there is an improvement in picture quality over my Nikon Z8. But, the visoflex won't let me magnify beyond 100% and quite a bit of lag in use. I am hoping to have a digital body that has a very good EVF and is optimized for legacy lenses, just like my digital M.
The Leica SL fit most of the criteria (except for IBIS) and the price is almost the same as a Nikon ZF now. But, for a few hundred dollars more, I can also get an SL2, which has IBIS and more resolution. I don't know how much the Nikon Z8 is lack behind on the sensor optimization part (for legacy lenses), compared to the Leica SL series. For the price of a SL2, I can also buy a Sony A7r iv and have Kolari to convert to thin cover glass. The Sony will also be lighter as well.
I will love to hear your thought on this. Or am I just crazy....Show more →
This is the prerequisite that few have commented on "the visoflex won't let me magnify beyond 100%"
This I have never been able to get beyond with my Leica anything, not to mention other camera systems. Since you are a Nikon guy do they zoom for image capture beyond 100%?
Dang "gateway drugs"! Picked up a SL2 just today locally. Came with 3 batteries, charger, and other accessories. The big plus was a bunch of adaptors since I've been using adapted lenses for decades. All priced really well in my book.
algrove wrote:
This is the prerequisite that few have commented on "the visoflex won't let me magnify beyond 100%"
This I have never been able to get beyond with my Leica anything, not to mention other camera systems. Since you are a Nikon guy do they zoom for image capture beyond 100%?
