I realize that this is a bit of an apples to orange comparison question. However I have been a Sony shooter of landscapes and occassionally cityscapes, dogs and kids. I started with the A6000, moved to the A7RIII and recently to the A7RV. The RV is an extremely capable camera, with good ergos for me since I generally keep an L bracket on it, and does everything that I need it to do.
However lately I have been lured into the Leica mystique and to the SL2 since it is somewhat affordable. I should also note that I am a zoom shooter, 16-35, 24-105, and 100-400.
So my question is: how much of a tradeoff would I experience in moving to the older body of the SL2 from the RV to get the shot that I want.
I’d stay with what currently works for you. I also shoot landscapes and the camera is on the tripod 99% of the time. What benefit do you feel you’ll get by moving to Leica for landscape photography? Not having an articulating lcd would make it a dead stop for my landscape photography.
pjmsj21 wrote:
I realize that this is a bit of an apples to orange comparison question. However I have been a Sony shooter of landscapes and occassionally cityscapes, dogs and kids. I started with the A6000, moved to the A7RIII and recently to the A7RV. The RV is an extremely capable camera, with good ergos for me since I generally keep an L bracket on it, and does everything that I need it to do.
However lately I have been lured into the Leica mystique and to the SL2 since it is somewhat affordable. I should also note that I am a zoom shooter, 16-35, 24-105, and 100-400.
So my question is: how much of a tradeoff would I experience in moving to the older body of the SL2 from the RV to get the shot that I want.
I agree that if you are happy with what you are using, then there is probably little reason to change. You would be giving up some DR (between 1/2 to over a stop depending on ISO), AF performance, lower magnification and lower MP EVF, a few MP's and would also be moving to a larger and heavier body. In exchange, you might gain a better user interface, more robust body and build (maybe?), possibly more neutral, natural default color profile "out of the box". What you would also really want to look at is the exact lenses you would use vs your current Sony zooms. Panasonic does make some very nice higher end Pro S zooms. All in all though, I say if you are happy with the Sony, stick with it.
Readout speed of the SL2 is about 2.5x - 3x faster. If rolling shutter / e-shutter has been an issue / concern that's a potential "gain" for the SL2 ... in addition to the points that Tariq mentioned.
I think you're also moving away from a BSI sensor in the Sony (iirc).
My journey into SL didn't occur until I got my hands on one. I think it is one of those things you need to "feel it" for yourself to know how you like / not what it brings to the table. It's not going to be a "spec sheet" thing. It's gonna be a "how you like using it" thing.
Of course, that takes us back to your comment about liking the ergo on your Sony.
RustyBug wrote:
Readout speed of the SL2 is about 2.5x - 3x faster. If rolling shutter / e-shutter has been an issue / concern that's a potential "gain" for the SL2 ... in addition to the points that Tariq mentioned.
I think you're also moving away from a BSI sensor in the Sony (iirc).
My journey into SL didn't occur until I got my hands on one. I think it is one of those things you need to "feel it" for yourself to know how you like / not what it brings to the table. It's not going to be a "spec sheet" thing. It's gonna be a "how you like using it" thing.
Of course, that takes us back to your comment about liking the ergo on your Sony. ...Show more →
Thanks for your comments and I tend to agree. I think the attraction is to experience the Leica "experience" and the feel is a part of that.
RustyBug wrote:
Readout speed of the SL2 is about 2.5x - 3x faster. If rolling shutter / e-shutter has been an issue / concern that's a potential "gain" for the SL2 ... in addition to the points that Tariq mentioned.
I think you're also moving away from a BSI sensor in the Sony (iirc).
My journey into SL didn't occur until I got my hands on one. I think it is one of those things you need to "feel it" for yourself to know how you like / not what it brings to the table. It's not going to be a "spec sheet" thing. It's gonna be a "how you like using it" thing.
Of course, that takes us back to your comment about liking the ergo on your Sony. ...Show more →
I think if landscape is the majority of the focus…then camera ergo really doesn’t come into play as the camera will be sitting atop a tripod. The lack of articulating lcd is a major drawback as it’s key for much landscape photography…at least for me.
pjmsj21 wrote:
Thanks for your comments and I tend to agree. I think the attraction is to experience the Leica "experience" and the feel is a part of that.
Rent before buying as you might be disappointed with the Leica experience when shooting landscapes.
The SL3 is the natural move from an A7R5, not a SL2. With the SL2 you'll lose some resolution and DR. The screen doesn't matter as you can use Fotos, reliably. The EVF on the Leica is lower in res but about the same in real world use.
The SL's have advantages in build quality and weather sealing, long exposures and for the SL2, a vastly better high res shot implementation. The SL3 has auto keystone correcyion built in and eeks very slightly more from the 61MP sensor in terms of usable DR.
As much as I like the SL3 I don't see the point in sidegrading, unless you really don't like the Sony.
Gordon
Jun 26, 2025 at 11:40 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
pjmsj21 wrote:
I realize that this is a bit of an apples to orange comparison question. However I have been a Sony shooter of landscapes and occassionally cityscapes, dogs and kids. I started with the A6000, moved to the A7RIII and recently to the A7RV. The RV is an extremely capable camera, with good ergos for me since I generally keep an L bracket on it, and does everything that I need it to do.
However lately I have been lured into the Leica mystique and to the SL2 since it is somewhat affordable. I should also note that I am a zoom shooter, 16-35, 24-105, and 100-400.
So my question is: how much of a tradeoff would I experience in moving to the older body of the SL2 from the RV to get the shot that I want.
I like the SL2 and SL3 a lot as cameras. It has many things going for it. A great sensor. A great menu system. Great lenses available for the system. Excellent EVFs. That said, personally I chose the A7r V instead. The Sony camera has basically the same sensor as the SL3, it also has many great lenses available to the camera system. It also has an excellent EVF (I like the optics better on the Leica, but the Sony has a bit higher resolution, so I consider that about a draw). I also like the flippy LCD on the Sony and that is especially useful for landscape shooting (and for me for macro shooting). And one important weird omission in the SL cameras is electronic first curtain shutter (EFCS). When shooting landscapes especially with any longer lens it really reduces vibrations and helps get a crisper shot. I can't explain why Leica hasn't implemented EFCS for the SL series cameras. It makes no sense but may be a pain to work around and especially so for you as a primarily landscape shooter. That said, one can work around it most of the time and no one feature should probably be over emphasized. Both are great camera systems. I just don't see how you will gain all that much by switching and it will take a lot of time and money to switch. I think what you will primarily get is a simpler operation of the camera, and that certainly isn't nothing but for me it wasn't enough to go with the SL.
RustyBug wrote:
My journey into SL didn't occur until I got my hands on one. I think it is one of those things you need to "feel it" for yourself to know how you like / not what it brings to the table. It's not going to be a "spec sheet" thing. It's gonna be a "how you like using it" thing.
My experience exactly. When transitioning to mirrorless I knew I would be replacing my lenses. I enjoyed how my Leica M lenses performed and wanted to try their SL versions, which by all accounts were even better. So my goal was a host for SL glass which I knew I would be happy with, but my concern was the SL bodies. I read all the reports of poor autofocus performance so rather than buy new, I purchased a used SL figuring I could always get my money out of it if it didn't work out. Not only did I find the autofocus worked fine in my shooting (events), but that I loved the camera. Even though I added the SL2 and SL2-S, the SL is my favorite.
Gordon, Steve, Luke, thanks for your input. I was out shooting some casual photos of our dog and not surprisingly have some really nice images. Could I have gotten these with the SL2, I really dont know but it was so easy with the RV, especially the spot on focus. For me, getting the shot is always more important than my interaction/experience with the camera as long as that experience is reasonably good.
I guess this is a long way of saying, I am going to stay with the 7RV while looking at Leica or Fuji, not as a replacement for the Sony, but as a more casual camera.
pjmsj21 wrote:
Gordon, Steve, Luke, thanks for your input. I was out shooting some casual photos of our dog and not surprisingly have some really nice images. Could I have gotten these with the SL2, I really dont know but it was so easy with the RV, especially the spot on focus. For me, getting the shot is always more important than my interaction/experience with the camera as long as that experience is reasonably good.
I guess this is a long way of saying, I am going to stay with the 7RV while looking at Leica or Fuji, not as a replacement for the Sony, but as a more casual camera....Show more →
Very happy to hear that you have found a solution you enjoy and get the results you want. As always, enjoyed the discussions with everyone in this thread.
pjmsj21 wrote:
Gordon, Steve, Luke, thanks for your input. I was out shooting some casual photos of our dog and not surprisingly have some really nice images. Could I have gotten these with the SL2, I really dont know but it was so easy with the RV, especially the spot on focus. For me, getting the shot is always more important than my interaction/experience with the camera as long as that experience is reasonably good.
I guess this is a long way of saying, I am going to stay with the 7RV while looking at Leica or Fuji, not as a replacement for the Sony, but as a more casual camera....Show more →
If you want something special for your Sony, I can highly recommend the f2 zooms. Absolutely spectacular and there’s absolutely nothing more you can get from any Leica lens, except a percent or two from the Summicron APO Sl’s. As good as some of the Leica zooms are, I’d take the 28-70 f2 over any standard zoom available in L mount.
If you want something Leica, one of the Q3’s is a great place to start. Feels like an M. Acts like an SL3 with a fixed lens.
Malabito wrote:
If you need excellent autofocus and access to a wide range of lenses, don't even consider switching, you'll be extremely disappointed
In all fairness, what’s missing from L mount now? The choice is vast and growing rapidly.
And while Sony’s AF is absolutely superior, you need that extra level not as often as you might think. For the OP’s use case I doubt he’d see any significant loss. Of course if he’d asked to replace his Sony with a Leica and was a wildlife shooter you’d be spot on. But for general photography any brand does just fine.
I have used the Leica SL2 a fair bit, predominantly for kids, street, and wildlife, with the Pana 50/1.8, Pana 20-60, Sigma 100-400 and Leica M Mount lenses with an adapter.
For everything but action, sports and wildlife the camera is excellent, the handling is great. The simplicity of the Leica interface, the rugged design, the EVF and the comfort in adapting lenses from M mount is really great, as long as you like it. If this is your use case, try it out before you go for it.
Where the camera is really questionable, is with wildlife. But also to get this straight, because I think this statement is also sometimes misleading. If you shoot big mammals, wildlife more resting or static, or anything else where you feel comfortable with AF-S and spot or field AF, this camera is still a great option.
It is not the latest "AI tracking super duper fix it all", but it is just fine for a lot of shooting scenarios.
In case you want to catch dynamic action, you better go for something like the Sony A7R5, A9III, A1II, Canon R5II or comparable.
Toertel76 wrote:
It is not the latest "AI tracking super duper fix it all", but it is just fine for a lot of shooting scenarios.
In case you want to catch dynamic action, you better go for something like the Sony A7R5, A9III, A1II, Canon R5II or comparable.
That has been my experience, but I find my SL2 results with active subjects to be better than must users report. Last year I shot a children's event with my SL2 and 24-90. Part of the event was outdoors with the 10-12 year olds racing around a set of pylons. I had about an 80% in focus rate on the full tilt running participants. I wrote about this on another forum and was accused of "exaggeration" to put it nicely.
I believe my results are due to my technique in shooting active subjects. My experience began in the 90's with the Nikon F4. Its PDAF autofocus was pretty primative and required a lot of user involvement to get good results. Pros referred to it as Nikon's best manual focus SLR, largely eschewing its autofocus. Over time it (and I) got better. Once Nikon released bodies with an AF-On button I went to back-button focusing and continue to this day. With my Nikon DSLRs my technique with active subjects was to put a single focus point on the subject, initiate autofocus with the back-button, and let the camera achieve and maintain focus while I tracked the subject by keeping the focus point on the subject. This was virtually the only way to do it at the time.
Fast forward to today with the modern mirrorless bodies. I also shoot with a Nikon Z8 and I can let the camera do the heavy lifting. I still use the back button to initiate focus, but the camera can now find the active subject, track it wherever it may move in the viewfinder all the while maintaining precise focus. All I have to do is keep the subject in the frame. Now my SL2 and SL2-S are supposed to be able to do that as well, but clearly don't. My solution is to shoot them just like I did with my DSLRs. If I do the heavy lifting the camera is generally able to do the rest. So my SL2/SL2-S in focus rate on active subjects is lower than my Z8 (which had a 100% in focus rate at the same event this year) but certainly useable and not that far off the performance of my DSLR bodies.
The autofocus performance of my SL bodies meet my needs for 90+% of my shooting. While I would pick my Z8 for a track meet or birds in flight, my SL bodies are fine for most of what I regularly shoot, I just have to work a bit harder.
While I really like the Leica SLs: the bodies are wonderful, I would stick with what you have. There are more lenses for Sony and all the affordable Sigma lenses are available for Sony too. So it would be the
Leica lenses that would be the one thing that might influence the final image. Well, for a true Leica lens, you are setting yourself up for a lot of extra expense for dubious extra benefit. If you had M lenses then I might suggest yes. I also find it an odd to consider buying a Leica SL as a ‘casual’ camera, there is not much casual about a Leica SL IMO. A Leica Q or Digilux might be a casual choice that makes sense as an extra camera, but a system mirrorless, well to me that is a something to scratch a GASified itch when are invested in a Sony system.
