flash wrote: RAG_landscapes wrote:
Gordon, in reading your posts here and on Leica User Forum, for your wildlife photography, weight and bulk seemed to be of lessor importance. For me with landscapes where multi hour walking is involved, weight is of more importance. On trip to S.India, carried the SL3+APO21+28-70 = 2.211 kg. Trip to Patagonia X2D+35-100+28p = 2.094kg. If X2D with primes 28p/45p/75p = 1.768 kg. Upon return, sold the SL3 and by chance found a SL2 in great condition and price. Using the X2D gave, yes subjective, better colors, and in my use case, lighter in weight so the HB will be primary system.
SlowDriver wrote: 1bwana1 wrote: SlowDriver wrote: bwcolor wrote: rob_ww wrote:
I read this thread with interest, thanks. For the last four years I have been a happy A7Rx photographer regularly visiting the Sony thread. I came from decades with Leica in search of better AF, IBIS etc. But I still get the itch some times to come back to Leica again. Except this time the X2D2 has arrived. I am wondering if that camera with, say, a 38V or the 35-100 zoom might be a better choice than an SL3 with 28mm and 24-70, offering better IQ and usability at similar entry price, weight and form factor. Am I delusional?
You can be sure that the SL4 will cut both weight and size.
Just out of curiosity, why do you believe so?
I also believe that this is likely. Leica has been making strong effort to reduce the SL size and weight. I think those are the primary point of resistance (along with price) people have for the SL system.
The Leica SL weighed 847g (with battery), the SL2 916g and the SL3 854g, so with the SL3 they more or less brought the weight back to what it originally was (before IBIS was added). I am not really convinced that Leica wants to go any further. I kind of believe that they feel around 850g is the optimal weight for the SL which it very well might be for lenses like the 90-280. For all clarity, for me personally they also do not have to decrease the weight of the SL3 or SL3-S bodies but I do feel strongly they need at least one body (perhaps a new one) that is (significantly) smaller and lighter. My use case is the X2D II with 38V (around 1,200g). I would potentially reconsider the SL if they could provide an L-mount body and a APO Summicron-SL 35mm Mk II with a similar weight (as opposed to the current weight of 1,600g).
Agreed, I doubt Leica will go much lighter. They’re trading on build quality. And the Sl3 is in line with Z8’s and R1’s of this world. They could use a lighter body though. I’d rather that option than the pointless SL3-S.
I agree. Jonathan Slack on LUF recently said the following though "But I would really like to see a new and much smaller SL with the 60mp sensor and a decent EVF - and I think there is a big market for that.[\i]". Up till very recently he would not even entertain the idea of such a camera, so perhaps the opinions at Leica might have slightly evolved?
flash wrote: RAG_landscapes wrote:
Gordon, in reading your posts here and on Leica User Forum, for your wildlife photography, weight and bulk seemed to be of lessor importance. For me with landscapes where multi hour walking is involved, weight is of more importance. On trip to S.India, carried the SL3+APO21+28-70 = 2.211 kg. Trip to Patagonia X2D+35-100+28p = 2.094kg. If X2D with primes 28p/45p/75p = 1.768 kg. Upon return, sold the SL3 and by chance found a SL2 in great condition and price. Using the X2D gave, yes subjective, better colors, and in my use case, lighter in weight so the HB will be primary system.
SlowDriver wrote: 1bwana1 wrote: SlowDriver wrote: bwcolor wrote: rob_ww wrote:
I read this thread with interest, thanks. For the last four years I have been a happy A7Rx photographer regularly visiting the Sony thread. I came from decades with Leica in search of better AF, IBIS etc. But I still get the itch some times to come back to Leica again. Except this time the X2D2 has arrived. I am wondering if that camera with, say, a 38V or the 35-100 zoom might be a better choice than an SL3 with 28mm and 24-70, offering better IQ and usability at similar entry price, weight and form factor. Am I delusional?
You can be sure that the SL4 will cut both weight and size.
Just out of curiosity, why do you believe so?
I also believe that this is likely. Leica has been making strong effort to reduce the SL size and weight. I think those are the primary point of resistance (along with price) people have for the SL system.
The Leica SL weighed 847g (with battery), the SL2 916g and the SL3 854g, so with the SL3 they more or less brought the weight back to what it originally was (before IBIS was added). I am not really convinced that Leica wants to go any further. I kind of believe that they feel around 850g is the optimal weight for the SL which it very well might be for lenses like the 90-280. For all clarity, for me personally they also do not have to decrease the weight of the SL3 or SL3-S bodies but I do feel strongly they need at least one body (perhaps a new one) that is (significantly) smaller and lighter. My use case is the X2D II with 38V (around 1,200g). I would potentially reconsider the SL if they could provide an L-mount body and a APO Summicron-SL 35mm Mk II with a similar weight (as opposed to the current weight of 1,600g).
Agreed, I doubt Leica will go much lighter. They’re trading on build quality. And the Sl3 is in line with Z8’s and R1’s of this world. They could use a lighter body though. I’d rather that option than the pointless SL3-S.
I agree. Jonathan Slack on LUF recently said the following though "But I would really like to see a new and much smaller SL with the 60mp sensor and a decent EVF - and I think there is a big market for that. [\i]". Up till very recently he would not even entertain the idea of such a camera, so perhaps the opinions at Leica might have slightly evolved?
flash wrote: RAG_landscapes wrote:
Gordon, in reading your posts here and on Leica User Forum, for your wildlife photography, weight and bulk seemed to be of lessor importance. For me with landscapes where multi hour walking is involved, weight is of more importance. On trip to S.India, carried the SL3+APO21+28-70 = 2.211 kg. Trip to Patagonia X2D+35-100+28p = 2.094kg. If X2D with primes 28p/45p/75p = 1.768 kg. Upon return, sold the SL3 and by chance found a SL2 in great condition and price. Using the X2D gave, yes subjective, better colors, and in my use case, lighter in weight so the HB will be primary system.
SlowDriver wrote: 1bwana1 wrote: SlowDriver wrote: bwcolor wrote: rob_ww wrote:
I read this thread with interest, thanks. For the last four years I have been a happy A7Rx photographer regularly visiting the Sony thread. I came from decades with Leica in search of better AF, IBIS etc. But I still get the itch some times to come back to Leica again. Except this time the X2D2 has arrived. I am wondering if that camera with, say, a 38V or the 35-100 zoom might be a better choice than an SL3 with 28mm and 24-70, offering better IQ and usability at similar entry price, weight and form factor. Am I delusional?
You can be sure that the SL4 will cut both weight and size.
Just out of curiosity, why do you believe so?
I also believe that this is likely. Leica has been making strong effort to reduce the SL size and weight. I think those are the primary point of resistance (along with price) people have for the SL system.
The Leica SL weighed 847g (with battery), the SL2 916g and the SL3 854g, so with the SL3 they more or less brought the weight back to what it originally was (before IBIS was added). I am not really convinced that Leica wants to go any further. I kind of believe that they feel around 850g is the optimal weight for the SL which it very well might be for lenses like the 90-280. For all clarity, for me personally they also do not have to decrease the weight of the SL3 or SL3-S bodies but I do feel strongly they need at least one body (perhaps a new one) that is (significantly) smaller and lighter. My use case is the X2D II with 38V (around 1,200g). I would potentially reconsider the SL if they could provide an L-mount body and a APO Summicron-SL 35mm Mk II with a similar weight (as opposed to the current weight of 1,600g).
Agreed, I doubt Leica will go much lighter. They’re trading on build quality. And the Sl3 is in line with Z8’s and R1’s of this world. They could use a lighter body though. I’d rather that option than the pointless SL3-S.
I agree. Jonathan Slack on LUF recently said the following though "But I would really like to see a new and much smaller SL with the 60mp sensor and a decent EVF - and I think there is a big market for that. [\i]". Up till very recently he would not even entertain the idea of such a camera, so perhaps the opinions at Leica might have slightly evolved?
flash wrote: RAG_landscapes wrote:
Gordon, in reading your posts here and on Leica User Forum, for your wildlife photography, weight and bulk seemed to be of lessor importance. For me with landscapes where multi hour walking is involved, weight is of more importance. On trip to S.India, carried the SL3+APO21+28-70 = 2.211 kg. Trip to Patagonia X2D+35-100+28p = 2.094kg. If X2D with primes 28p/45p/75p = 1.768 kg. Upon return, sold the SL3 and by chance found a SL2 in great condition and price. Using the X2D gave, yes subjective, better colors, and in my use case, lighter in weight so the HB will be primary system.
SlowDriver wrote: 1bwana1 wrote: SlowDriver wrote: bwcolor wrote: rob_ww wrote:
I read this thread with interest, thanks. For the last four years I have been a happy A7Rx photographer regularly visiting the Sony thread. I came from decades with Leica in search of better AF, IBIS etc. But I still get the itch some times to come back to Leica again. Except this time the X2D2 has arrived. I am wondering if that camera with, say, a 38V or the 35-100 zoom might be a better choice than an SL3 with 28mm and 24-70, offering better IQ and usability at similar entry price, weight and form factor. Am I delusional?
You can be sure that the SL4 will cut both weight and size.
Just out of curiosity, why do you believe so?
I also believe that this is likely. Leica has been making strong effort to reduce the SL size and weight. I think those are the primary point of resistance (along with price) people have for the SL system.
The Leica SL weighed 847g (with battery), the SL2 916g and the SL3 854g, so with the SL3 they more or less brought the weight back to what it originally was (before IBIS was added). I am not really convinced that Leica wants to go any further. I kind of believe that they feel around 850g is the optimal weight for the SL which it very well might be for lenses like the 90-280. For all clarity, for me personally they also do not have to decrease the weight of the SL3 or SL3-S bodies but I do feel strongly they need at least one body (perhaps a new one) that is (significantly) smaller and lighter. My use case is the X2D II with 38V (around 1,200g). I would potentially reconsider the SL if they could provide an L-mount body and a APO Summicron-SL 35mm Mk II with a similar weight (as opposed to the current weight of 1,600g).
Agreed, I doubt Leica will go much lighter. They’re trading on build quality. And the Sl3 is in line with Z8’s and R1’s of this world. They could use a lighter body though. I’d rather that option than the pointless SL3-S.
I agree. Jonathan Slack on LUF recently said the following though "But I would really like to see a new and much smaller SL with the 60mp sensor and a decent EVF - and I think there is a big market for that. ". Up till very recently he would not even entertain the idea of such a camera, so perhaps the opinions at Leica might have slightly evolved?
flash wrote: RAG_landscapes wrote:
Gordon, in reading your posts here and on Leica User Forum, for your wildlife photography, weight and bulk seemed to be of lessor importance. For me with landscapes where multi hour walking is involved, weight is of more importance. On trip to S.India, carried the SL3+APO21+28-70 = 2.211 kg. Trip to Patagonia X2D+35-100+28p = 2.094kg. If X2D with primes 28p/45p/75p = 1.768 kg. Upon return, sold the SL3 and by chance found a SL2 in great condition and price. Using the X2D gave, yes subjective, better colors, and in my use case, lighter in weight so the HB will be primary system.
---------------------------------------------
SlowDriver wrote: 1bwana1 wrote: SlowDriver wrote: bwcolor wrote: rob_ww wrote:
I read this thread with interest, thanks. For the last four years I have been a happy A7Rx photographer regularly visiting the Sony thread. I came from decades with Leica in search of better AF, IBIS etc. But I still get the itch some times to come back to Leica again. Except this time the X2D2 has arrived. I am wondering if that camera with, say, a 38V or the 35-100 zoom might be a better choice than an SL3 with 28mm and 24-70, offering better IQ and usability at similar entry price, weight and form factor. Am I delusional?
You can be sure that the SL4 will cut both weight and size.
Just out of curiosity, why do you believe so?
I also believe that this is likely. Leica has been making strong effort to reduce the SL size and weight. I think those are the primary point of resistance (along with price) people have for the SL system.
The Leica SL weighed 847g (with battery), the SL2 916g and the SL3 854g, so with the SL3 they more or less brought the weight back to what it originally was (before IBIS was added). I am not really convinced that Leica wants to go any further. I kind of believe that they feel around 850g is the optimal weight for the SL which it very well might be for lenses like the 90-280. For all clarity, for me personally they also do not have to decrease the weight of the SL3 or SL3-S bodies but I do feel strongly they need at least one body (perhaps a new one) that is (significantly) smaller and lighter. My use case is the X2D II with 38V (around 1,200g). I would potentially reconsider the SL if they could provide an L-mount body and a APO Summicron-SL 35mm Mk II with a similar weight (as opposed to the current weight of 1,600g).
Agreed, I doubt Leica will go much lighter. They’re trading on build quality. And the Sl3 is in line with Z8’s and R1’s of this world. They could use a lighter body though. I’d rather that option than the pointless SL3-S.
I agree. Jonathan Slack on LUF recently said the following though "But I would really like to see a new and much smaller SL with the 60mp sensor and a decent EVF - and I think there is a big market for that. ". Up till very recently he would not even entertain the idea of such a camera, so perhaps the opinions at Leica might have slightly evolved?
flash wrote: RAG_landscapes wrote:
Gordon, in reading your posts here and on Leica User Forum, for your wildlife photography, weight and bulk seemed to be of lessor importance. For me with landscapes where multi hour walking is involved, weight is of more importance. On trip to S.India, carried the SL3+APO21+28-70 = 2.211 kg. Trip to Patagonia X2D+35-100+28p = 2.094kg. If X2D with primes 28p/45p/75p = 1.768 kg. Upon return, sold the SL3 and by chance found a SL2 in great condition and price. Using the X2D gave, yes subjective, better colors, and in my use case, lighter in weight so the HB will be primary system.
Absolutely! I weigh my gear relentlessly before each trip. Even the wildlife one in Africa. It’s just that for those a 600mm is needed so I have to expect a big kit. But on most of those trips internal flights are very strict on weight. The next one is 25kg for everything and I have 10kg of camera gear. So I’ve purchased ultra light bags to shave grams.
On our last Iceland trip I took the SL3 because I wanted more reach than the X2D could give me. Iceland like long lenses. But I also took a Panny 24-105 for hiking days, to save weight. Now there’s the 35-100 I’d likely take that instead plus a SL3 and 100-400, or similar. On my next trip I think I’d take my X2D and 35-100, 20-35 and 135/TC but my main camera will be a drone. I’d only use tha HB where drones aren’t allowed.
---------------------------------------------
SlowDriver wrote: 1bwana1 wrote: SlowDriver wrote: bwcolor wrote: rob_ww wrote:
I read this thread with interest, thanks. For the last four years I have been a happy A7Rx photographer regularly visiting the Sony thread. I came from decades with Leica in search of better AF, IBIS etc. But I still get the itch some times to come back to Leica again. Except this time the X2D2 has arrived. I am wondering if that camera with, say, a 38V or the 35-100 zoom might be a better choice than an SL3 with 28mm and 24-70, offering better IQ and usability at similar entry price, weight and form factor. Am I delusional?
You can be sure that the SL4 will cut both weight and size.
Just out of curiosity, why do you believe so?
I also believe that this is likely. Leica has been making strong effort to reduce the SL size and weight. I think those are the primary point of resistance (along with price) people have for the SL system.
The Leica SL weighed 847g (with battery), the SL2 916g and the SL3 854g, so with the SL3 they more or less brought the weight back to what it originally was (before IBIS was added). I am not really convinced that Leica wants to go any further. I kind of believe that they feel around 850g is the optimal weight for the SL which it very well might be for lenses like the 90-280. For all clarity, for me personally they also do not have to decrease the weight of the SL3 or SL3-S bodies but I do feel strongly they need at least one body (perhaps a new one) that is (significantly) smaller and lighter. My use case is the X2D II with 38V (around 1,200g). I would potentially reconsider the SL if they could provide an L-mount body and a APO Summicron-SL 35mm Mk II with a similar weight (as opposed to the current weight of 1,600g).
Agreed, I doubt Leica will go much lighter. They’re trading on build quality. And the Sl3 is in line with Z8’s and R1’s of this world. They could use a lighter body though. I’d rather that option than the pointless SL3-S.
I agree. Jonathan Slack on LUF recently said the following though "But I would really like to see a new and much smaller SL with the 60mp sensor and a decent EVF - and I think there is a big market for that. [\i]". Up till very recently he would not even entertain the idea of such a camera, so perhaps the opinions at Leica might have slightly evolved?
Jan 22, 2026 at 06:47 PM
Previous versions of SlowDriver's message #16972440 « Hasselblad vs Leica image quality (IQ) »
