highdesertmesa wrote: RoamingScott wrote: SlowDriver wrote:
It is kind of interesting that relatively few people seem to opt for the Leica SL.
In my mind the Leica SL was explicitly designed to complement the M, to work well with M-lenses and to keep Leica M customers in the Leica ecosystem.
It took them until FW 4.0 to make the camera decently usable, it's not a surprise to me at all. It's a huge camera with few upsides compared to the competition.
True. I bought and promptly sold my first SL3 at launch and didn't repurchase one again until 4.0. It's a decent camera now, though not at all a good value.
I was ok with the SL2-S size, so the SL3 being smaller doesn't feel too large to me.
I like how M lenses handle and focus on the SL3, but M lenses aren't the only lenses I need to be able to adapt. I don't want a camera body that's too small for some of the larger lenses I have. SLR era cameras had a huge mirror box, so the lenses have to sit pretty far forward when adapted. Without a chunky body and large grip, heavier lenses and lenses with more weight out toward the front element can be tiresome to use for too long adapted to a small camera.
In the end, and SL3 is not a logical choice given the price, but it is satisfying to use to me. The saying a fool and their money are soon parted probably applies to me here, but YOLO That said, a used SL2-S isn't that extravagant.
Like others have said, it does make a lot of sense to just adapt M lenses to the system you already have and make it work. IQ in some cases may suffer due to the thicker sensor stack, but most of us are shooting M lenses wide open for fun, not stopped down for serious landscape.
That's a beautiful SL3 Reporter. It goes well with that Rokkor 58/1.2--a very special lens. At least no one will accuse you of using vintage SLR lenses to save money. Speaking of vintage lenses, there are some SLR lenses that also suffer from induced field curvature on cameras with thick sensor stacks, so it's not just the M lenses that have a performance benefit on the Leica bodies.
Leicas may be expensive in a relative sense, but the absolute difference in price between an SL3 and, say, a used Canon Rebel is not all that much in absolute terms. $7500 doesn't buy much these days. As you say, you only live once. You might as well spend a few bucks to get a camera that you enjoy. I can think of far more extravagant purchases.
Jun 11, 2026 at 08:07 PM
Previous versions of dan98's message #17054255 « Best non M camera for M-mount lenses »
That said, a used SL2-S isn't that extravagant.
Speaking of vintage lenses, there are some SLR lenses that also suffer from induced field curvature on cameras with thick sensor stacks, so it's not just the M lenses that have a performance benefit on the Leica bodies.