I shoot Sony since many years, happy enough with that for my regular photography, mix of family and people photography, travel and cityscapes, occasional landscape
I used to shoot Leica M6 TTL back when, later M10 but gave up. Rangefinder is a bit slow and hit/miss for me these days.
I miss the Leica files and experience, but I want it with control this time, i.e. manual focus. I decide the exposure triangle and where the focus lands, thus not a Q of some sort (been there, done that). I decided to pick up a 35'lux again. I thought about putting on Nikon Zf for now, but with the TTartisan adapter no longer in production, it is less than optimal.
I tried it on a SL2 today at a local store - heavy and dense package, but I really love the big and bright EVF, and the weight if fine in hand, it is more that it is a heavy combo to keep in a shoulder-bag.
A SL2 is around 2 grand, a M10R or M11 is five thousand plus, so I'd thought I would start using on a SL and enjoy slowing things down.
What's the feedback from users here? Any active SL + M glass users? What do you like/dislike about it? ...Show more →
Unless you really need the higher resolution, I would recommend the SL2-S over the SL2. Magnification for manual focus in low light is much better on the SL2-S, and it's a more modern BSI sensor.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Unless you really need the higher resolution, I would recommend the SL2-S over the SL2. Magnification for manual focus in low light is much better on the SL2-S, and it's a more modern BSI sensor.
SL2 vs SL2S is a real and important decision. As I said, I know the SL2 47 MP sensor from my Q2 days, and I do like it a lot on terms of colors, contrast, etc. I feel like having 47 MP is a good place if I am only going to use a 35'lux for now, as I can crop a bit more. But low-light capabilities of the 24 MP sensors are tempting as well.
Last year I was having increasing issues with RF focusing my M-P240 and M246 in less than ideal situations to the point I was using their primitive add-on EVFs the majority of the time. Due to this I picked up a clean SL2 for use with my M glass.
It works fine but in the end I traded in my digital M bodies for a M EV1. The SL2 shines with native L mount lenses.
I use a Canon R5 and always wanted to buy an SL2 for M lenses, but since I got the BORYOZA LM-RF II (Shoten) adapter, I no longer want to. It focuses very quickly and reliably, without having to check with magnification. The focusing window can track faces/eyes. The Canon R5's sensor handles M lenses very well. I use Voigtlander lenses 21/3.5, 28/2II, 35/1.2III, 35/2 APO, 50/1.2, 50/2APO, 75/1.5, and 90/2APO. I'd like to compare the same frames with the Canon R5 vs. the Leica SL2, but I don't think there's a significant difference.
szwayko wrote:
I use a Canon R5 and always wanted to buy an SL2 for M lenses, but since I got the BORYOZA LM-RF II (Shoten) adapter, I no longer want to. It focuses very quickly and reliably, without having to check with magnification. The focusing window can track faces/eyes. The Canon R5's sensor handles M lenses very well. I use Voigtlander lenses 21/3.5, 28/2II, 35/1.2III, 35/2 APO, 50/1.2, 50/2APO, 75/1.5, and 90/2APO. I'd like to compare the same frames with the Canon R5 vs. the Leica SL2, but I don't think there's a significant difference.
You found the sweet spot there with the R5 senorstack thickness and the specific lenses you use. The APO glass correct a lot of issues that may have occured. In my case, the main lens would be the ref 11663 35'lux FLE, which would produce noticeable corner smearing, especially wide open. I wish the R5 would work in my usecase - you should definitely stick to it.
szwayko wrote:
I use a Canon R5 and always wanted to buy an SL2 for M lenses, but since I got the BORYOZA LM-RF II (Shoten) adapter, I no longer want to. It focuses very quickly and reliably, without having to check with magnification. The focusing window can track faces/eyes. The Canon R5's sensor handles M lenses very well. I use Voigtlander lenses 21/3.5, 28/2II, 35/1.2III, 35/2 APO, 50/1.2, 50/2APO, 75/1.5, and 90/2APO. I'd like to compare the same frames with the Canon R5 vs. the Leica SL2, but I don't think there's a significant difference.
From 21mm to 50mm, there should be a noticeable improvement moving from the R5 to an SL sensor with M lenses (for edge-to-edge sharpness of infinity/longer distance shots). If you're mainly shooting at close distance at wide apertures with a central subject (person, flower, etc.), you won't see as much difference.
Fred Miranda wrote:
As far as M-mount lens compatibility with sensor stack thickness, here's how it ranks, starting with the best option:
1. Leica M body
2. Mirrorless body modified to the thinner Leica sensor stack (like Kolari)
3. Leica SL
4. Nikon Z
5. All other stock mirrorless cameras
Also, the gap from SL to Nikon Z is quite noticeable, while the gap from Leica M to SL is much smaller.
Thanks for posting the article. I figured some level of corrections were being applied in those M lens profiles on the SL system other than just lens identification, EXIF and data needed for stabilization.
highdesertmesa wrote:
From 21mm to 50mm, there should be a noticeable improvement moving from the R5 to an SL sensor with M lenses (for edge-to-edge sharpness of infinity/longer distance shots). If you're mainly shooting at close distance at wide apertures with a central subject (person, flower, etc.), you won't see as much difference.
As I pointed out, APO is one of the exemptions and using it stopped down also helps greatly. The problems arises on fast prime lenses of older design, like trying using the Summilux-M 35/1.4 FLE wide open.
As I said - it is great that it works for your use cases and lenses - enjoy!
