I have Leica q3 43 and am using occasionally - more so than my old camera equipment.
Now I have the itch to get a new camera - not sure if I need it.
So I figured go with an older camera - either M240 or SL2 - leaning towards SL2 so that I have an extra body and can add third party lenses and also use my old canon equipment - any thoughts ?
I pick these two because they are fairly reasonable compared to newer Leica equipment.
Sell all of the setup or keep the lenses and get SL2 with adaptor ?
My old canon gear is
Canon 24-70 f2.8 II IS
Canon 70-200 f2.8 II IS
Canon 50mm f1.2
Canon 5dMK III
I barely used the canon setup probably 200-300 pictures in 10 yrs.
AF on the SL2 is old school. Not very good
M240, getting old and serviceability could be an issue. Not to mention the ridiculous turn around time. ( Many months )
In all honesty, if you ate looking for body to use 3rd party lenses. ( I assume M mount ) just go with a Nikon ZF. It is undeniably the best affordable camera to accommodate M lenses with a focusing that cannot be beat.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
In all honesty, if you ate looking for body to use 3rd party lenses. ( I assume M mount ) just go with a Nikon ZF. It is undeniably the best affordable camera to accommodate M lenses with a focusing that cannot be beat.
Indeed but I always wonder why everybody recommend the ZF when the Z5 II and Z6 III have the some focusing aid?
Perhaps a relevant question is why did you barely use the Canon system and will an SL2 change that? Both in terms of actually using adapted Canon lenses and in respect to actually using a large system camera such as the SL2. I'm guessing you're considering the SL2 for certain Leica features, access to various L mount lenses and also adapting other system lenses?
M240 means acquiring M mount lenses. Do you already have some? If not, factor that into the cost consideration (of course you can choose from a wide range of more affordable non-Leica lenses). While you can adapt pretty much any legacy system lens onto the M240 because it has live view, it really benefits from using the accessory EVF but overall is not a smooth user experience like it is with current mirrorless cameras. IMO, if you're curious about the M system, it should be to learn the rangefinder approach to photography, which can be fun, or frustrating. But generally it's challenging for a variety of reasons, and this can be a refreshing change from the mainstream approaches.
With the SL2 I would ask myself - what advantage does this camera offer over any other higher-end mirrorless system camera? As already mentioned, you could consider Nikon. Considering the EF lenses you might keep, they will work seamlessly on Canon's R system that will be multitudes more capable than the 5DIII. But maybe sheer performance isn't what you're after? Without a better explanation, it's difficult to make an informed recommendation.
It's a personal decision you will not likely solve here, but will get plenty of opinions. I own two SL2's with SL glass and a rarely used Sigma 100-400. I'm set, but that's me. It took me 15 years of chasing the greener grass of "better" systems like Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic, to come to the conclusion that the best system for me is the one I enjoy using. It's different for everyone.
If you really want to adapt your Canon lenses just get a Canon RF Camera R5, R6 or variation thereof etc. If you want to get newer lenses then think about the SL camera, or Nikon etc.
treacle wrote:
If you really want to adapt your Canon lenses just get a Canon RF Camera R5, R6 or variation thereof etc. If you want to get newer lenses then think about the SL camera, or Nikon etc.
This is where my mind was going as well. Get a minty R5 and enjoy your Canon glass on that one.
The other option is a rangefinder. Very much an acquired taste and skill-set.
I see from your other post/thread you are new to photography. Stick with your Q3 for a while longer. Learn the basics with that and then come back with as many questions as you need. Work out what you want to shoot and WHY you want to shoot and then we can guide you down the new toys route.
New gear is awesome. Too much gear you don’t understand is an awful experience. You have one of the best cameras to learn on, ever made. Stick with it, and just it, for a while.
If you are looking for a DIFFERENT experience, the M way of using a rangefinder provides for that.
If you are looking for a platform to go along with your fixed lens Q (which has AF, and you still want AF, just diff focal lengths, IBIS) ... the SL2 (SL series) uses the same battery size as your Q.
The one thing about an SL body is that you can also get the adapter to use with the M mont lenses for the manual focusing / tactile lens experience if you do NOT WANT the rangefinder experience.
Without getting into the matter of your Canon gear ... I think the most significant decision relative to your presented options for SL2 vs. M240 is the matter of the rangefinder.
Personally, I had the M240-P, and if you DO decide to go with the M240, I HIGHLY recommend seeking out the -P variant. The shutter release experience is quite nice, imo. Also, has a bit more buffer, iirc. Can't recall other diff's of the -P vs. the garden variety M240.
Presently, I have an SL2-S variant of the SL2 ... and an M246 (monochrome) variant of the M240, still. M240-P was traded for my M10-R.
Do you have a sense of what lens focal lengths you desire to work with? If you want to work with longer glass (i.e. your 70-200 zoom) ... it bodes for the SL2. The longest M lens is the 135/3.4 APO. The 90 / 75 variants are next up for length, then you're into the 50 and below stuff.
