Over time, I have collected a few voigtländer and m-rokkor m-mount lenses. It seems that the best cameras (excluding the M rangefinders) would be the SL lineup or the Nikon Z.
Right now, I am looking at either the Zf or the SL2-S. Looks like $500-600 difference in used prices of these cameras. I currently have the 50/2 Lanthar and 75/1.9 that I will use with the new body and will add the 28/2 Lanthar and perhaps the 15/4.5 v3 Heliar.
The SL2-S has better EVF and a sensor stack that may render better than the Z - but I don't know that for a fact. The Zf gets me focus confirmation with the right adapter and perhaps better IBIS. They seem about equal for DR/Noise.
Why the ZF instead of the Z5II, which is less expensive and has a few advantages? And, if it's strictly for adapted lenses, why either of them? Why not a gently used Z7 with its beautiful sensor?
Unless you've got an interest in using L lenses, I wouldn't pay the red dot tax on a used SL2-S.
It is for manual focus lenses so focus issues should be alow priority. These lenses are about IQ, unique rendering and unique shooting experience. So I say make your choice based on the sensor. This means that the SL2 (not S) is probably best. You can buy them used at great prices right now.
I had this exact decision - well, the Zf vs SL2 (non S) - and landed with the Zf. Mostly for ergonomic reasons: the SL2's grip made me feel like my hand was cramping up after a few hours of use. Otherwise a lovely camera! Just not for me.
A few other thoughts:
- The Zf's manual focus implementation is very good. You can set it up such that it will still track subjects and just confirm (or even fire the shutter!) when the subject is in focus. It has completely ruined focus peaking or magnification for me.
- I believe the SL2's EVF is better on paper...but I'd still pick the Zf's EVF. Maybe something that Nikon did with the EVF optics? It punches way above its weight, I don't know why.
- The Zf IBIS is great, I have a 6-bit adapter and have coded my lenses so it automatically handles the focal length setting. I don't think twice about shooting down at 1/30th or even 1/15th. I was less confident with the SL2. It's not bad, just not as good.
- I did not notice significant IQ differences using the same lens on both cameras. (Other than the SL2's higher resolution.) I'm sure they exist! It just wasn't enough for me to factor it in when deciding.
I was using the SL2 and not the SL2-S so...low light/noise went to the Zf. It's one of those sensors that feels like it can see in the dark and still be usable. I would guess this is a wash with the SL2-S, they're very similar.
Hope this helps! I still feel like there's no wrong choice here: good cameras are good, you know?
dubdromic wrote:
- The Zf IBIS is great, I have a 6-bit adapter and have coded my lenses so it automatically handles the focal length setting. I don't think twice about shooting down at 1/30th or even 1/15th. I was less confident with the SL2. It's not bad, just not as good.
Very interesting. Can you tell us which 6 bits adapter?
Did you tried the Kolari conversion?
And does someone know which other Nikon cameras have the same manual focus aids?
I assume you're referring to the Kolari thin sensor conversion? I have not done it. I've read the difference is quite small in practice for normal lenses but I haven't actually seen any real-world tests either way.
Don’t have experience with the Nikon but I just recently picked up an SL2-S to complement an M10R and couldn’t happier. Love the simplicity and similarities the SL2S shares with the M, which makes it easy to go back and forth using the same lenses. It was worth the Leica tax for my purposes.
The SL2-S that the OP is asking about has a much better EVF experience than either the SL2 or Zf, so much so that it's not even close. It's not just about the EVF itself, it's the superior image feed piped into the EVF, which makes it feel almost like using an optical viewfinder.
But do get the Zf if you want to play the oddball electronic adapter game that gets you focus confirmation. At first the Zf impressed me with the manual focus eye tracking, but eventually I decided it made way more sense to just use an AF lens. If I want to use a manual focus lens, I'll take a little more time and enjoy zooming in to focus. Lots of people won't/don't agree with me, obviously. Also, the lack of a joystick on the Zf is really annoying. Zf is still a really good camera, it's just not in the same class as the SL2-S (IMO of course). SL2-S color and AA-free sensor are also far superior to the Zf (again, just my personal preference/opinion).
The main deal killer regarding the SL2-S is the cost of the batteries. That alone might be enough to drive you another system.
highdesertmesa wrote:
The SL2-S that the OP is asking about has a much better EVF experience than either the SL2 or Zf, so much so that it's not even close.
This is the first time I heard anyone express any difference using MF lenses on the SL2-S vs SL2 regarding EVF differences between these two bodies. In contrast, I have heard a number of times some expressing the superiority of the SL2 and SL2-S EVF's using MF lenses vs. the SL3 EVF, especially when zooming (magnifying) in, where the clarity of the zoomed in SL3 EVF with MF lenses was not as clear as both the SL2 and SL2-S EVF's when using MF lenses, and employing magnification.
DandA123 wrote:
This is the first time I heard anyone express any difference using MF lenses on the SL2-S vs SL2 regarding EVF differences between these two bodies. In contrast, I have heard a number of times some expressing the superiority of the SL2 and SL2-S EVF's using MF lenses vs. the SL3 EVF, especially when zooming (magnifying) in, where the clarity of the zoomed in SL3 EVF with MF lenses was not as clear as both the SL2 and SL2-S EVF's when using MF lenses, and employing magnification.
You're right about the SL3. When it was first released, magnification was a bit soft. I recently repurchased one, and with the current firmware, magnification is outstanding. Previously both SL2 and SL2-S were better. Now only SL2-S is better than the SL3.
SL2 EVF magnification for manual focus is acceptable, but it's not on par with the SL2-S, particularly in low light. In low light, the SL2 image in the EVF is not in the same class. The lower sensor resolution of the SL2-S and its better high ISO performance help it tremendously in low light versus the SL2. Not sure where you heard the SL2 > SL2-S for manual focus, but having owned both, I see it the other way around.
pmeheut wrote:
Question then: as freaklikeme said, why the Zf and not the Z5II?
Because the Zf is beautiful and the Z5II looks like every other modern camera? And which of those better matches the aesthetic of manual focus lenses? If you're just spec comparing, then sure.
I have an SL3 and I cannot recommend it over the Zf/Z8/Z9 for adapting M lenses. SL3 EVF is blurry and laggy AF especially when punching in for critical focus.
dalegaspi wrote:
I have an SL3 and I cannot recommend it over the Zf/Z8/Z9 for adapting M lenses. SL3 EVF is blurry and laggy AF especially when punching in for critical focus.
Sounds like the Z8/Z9, which BLOW for manual focus/mag compared to every other Expeed 7 camera.
dalegaspi wrote:
I have an SL3 and I cannot recommend it over the Zf/Z8/Z9 for adapting M lenses. SL3 EVF is blurry and laggy AF especially when punching in for critical focus.
Are you on firmware 4.0.1? Also, we're talking about manually focusing manual focus lenses, not manually focusing AF lenses.
Can't speak for the Z8/Z9, but my SL3 is hands down better for manual focus lenses than my Zf was. Not even close.
[Edit to add: for the SL3 – gotta manually focus at the default magnification, which is one step below maximum. Max magnification is beyond 100% and it just can't push that amount of data around fast enough.]
The eye detect, 3d tracking on zf is amazing. The adapter that gives you focus confirmation is amazing. The af adapter is OK. The dumb adapter from voigtlander is amazing and really well built. Plus the voigtlander adapter has close focus capabilities which is awesome.
highdesertmesa wrote:
You're right about the SL3. When it was first released, magnification was a bit soft. I recently repurchased one, and with the current firmware, magnification is outstanding. Previously both SL2 and SL2-S were better. Now only SL2-S is better than the SL3.
SL2 EVF magnification for manual focus is acceptable, but it's not on par with the SL2-S, particularly in low light. In low light, the SL2 image in the EVF is not in the same class. The lower sensor resolution of the SL2-S and its better high ISO performance help it tremendously in low light versus the SL2. Not sure where you heard the SL2 > SL2-S for manual focus, but having owned both, I see it the other way around....Show more →
No, I didn't mean to imply that the SL2 vs SL2-S (comparing both for use with MF lenses) as one was better than the other in terms of EVF differences. I've used both and in my own use never noticed a difference between either when using a M lens and using magnification. Then again I hadn't compared both against each other in very low light and/or at high ISO (with regards to EVF differences between the two), so maybe in those circumstances there is a difference.
With regards to the SL3 and latest firmware 4.0, I read a couple posts that the EVF magnification with MF lenses with regards to the blurry EVF hadn't changed much but since I dont have experience with the SL3, I cannot comment except from the posts I read posted by others.
DandA123 wrote:
No, I didn't mean to imply that the SL2 vs SL2-S (comparing both for use with MF lenses) as one was better than the other in terms of EVF differences. I've used both and in my own use never noticed a difference between either when using a M lens and using magnification. Then again I hadn't compared both against each other in very low light and/or at high ISO (with regards to EVF differences between the two), so maybe in those circumstances there is a difference.
With regards to the SL3 and latest firmware 4.0, I read a couple posts that the EVF magnification with MF lenses with regards to the blurry EVF hadn't changed much but since I dont have experience with the SL3, I cannot comment except from the posts I read posted by others.
I read that, too. I wonder if all that changed is Leica changed the default magnification from the max available (slightly soft) to the one below that (nice and sharp).
For the normal / tele ... not a big deal, but for the wide / ultra wide ... sensor stack thickness may be an issue. That said, I seem to recall that the SL2-S has the thinnest sensor stack (could be wrong, so verify the Nikon thickness).
