The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

  • Recently, there has been an increased activity from spammers, which may result in you receiving unwanted private messages. We are working hard to limit this activity.

Going back from GFX100S to SL2

peterm1

Member
I currently have the GFX100S with a range of GF lenses, along with a M10R, 21mm SEM, 28 Lux, 50 Lux, 28mm PC, and a 135mm 3.4 on the way. I used to have a SL2 set up but switched (first to a X1D and then the GFX100S). My main reasons for going GFX were the combination of large res files with good dynamic range, flip LCD, IBIS, and good AF (compared to the X1D).

After using the GFX100S and then the M10R on a couple of trips, I am now thinking of letting the GFX gear go and going back to the SL2 to have as a companion to the M10R. The main reasons? 1) GF lenses are generally big and bulky (especially compared to M lenses). 2) I don't often need 100mp, and when I do I can use various resizing software which is getting better and better (I print up to 48" x 72" no problem with upsizing software). 3) The GFX menus are more complicated and the camera is less pleasurable to use than Leica. 4) Adapting both Leica M and Canon lenses (namely the 11-24mm and TS-E lenses) generally work MUCH better on the smaller format SL cameras. 5) Since I use the M10R a lot, switching between 2:3 and 3:4 aspect ratios is a pain, especially for selling prints, and while many people prefer 3:4, I prefer 2:3. 6) The SL lenses are just amazing. 7) While I use the Visoflex with the M10R, it would be nice to be able to sometimes use the EVF of the SL2 with my M lenses.

The cons of going back to the SL2 for me? 1) The SL lenses are crazy expensive compared to the GF lenses (and the SL zooms are also big and heavy). 2) IMHO the SL2 sensor clips highlights more easily and isn't nearly as good at high ISO as the Fuji (although I prefer the colors that come out of the SL2). 3) Less ability to crop and maintain resolution. 4) No flip LCD (this is the one thing I really really wish the SL2 had).

Anyway, I put my GFX and lenses up for possible trade for the SL2 and lenses - hope I don't regret it...
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Whatever floats your boat, Peter.
I'm quite happy with my GFX100S but do regret not having an M-system anymore.
Anyway, good luck selling and I'm sure you'll be more than pleased with the SL2.

Kind regards.
 

Joe Colson

Well-known member
Peter, we've exchanged views on these systems before, so my comments probably won't be new to you. I'm now fully committed to the Fuji GFX system. I don't find the lenses that much bigger and heavier than the SL2 lenses that I sold. And I find that I can hand hold the GFX 100S and get sharp photos with IBIS/OIS. The GF lenses are definitely up to the task of resolving to the 102MP sensor.

Looking over the current contenders in the full-frame 35mm category, I find the Sony a1 the most appealing. And the GM primes are rated very highly by DXO and other credible reviewers. If you're looking to lighten your load, the a1 and a few primes (even adapted M lenses) would make for an easier to carry bag. Just my two cents.

Good luck with your trade and with your ultimate choice.

Joe
 

peterm1

Member
Peter, we've exchanged views on these systems before, so my comments probably won't be new to you. I'm now fully committed to the Fuji GFX system. I don't find the lenses that much bigger and heavier than the SL2 lenses that I sold. And I find that I can hand hold the GFX 100S and get sharp photos with IBIS/OIS. The GF lenses are definitely up to the task of resolving to the 102MP sensor.

Looking over the current contenders in the full-frame 35mm category, I find the Sony a1 the most appealing. And the GM primes are rated very highly by DXO and other credible reviewers. If you're looking to lighten your load, the a1 and a few primes (even adapted M lenses) would make for an easier to carry bag. Just my two cents.

Good luck with your trade and with your ultimate choice.

Joe
Thanks Joe and good to hear from you. Good food for thought - I agree that the SL2 and SL lenses are rather large and heavy too, so from that perspective I'm not gaining a lot unless I adapt my M lenses. I gave up on Sony a few years ago when I got tired of the complicated menus and ergonomics, but maybe I should take a fresh look at the system because from a size and technical perspective (and lens selection), it does tick a lot of boxes for me. I am finding size and weight to become more important for me as I get older, so the Sony is intriguing....
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
If 3:2 floats your boat. For me that’s the main differentiator. Image quality, lens quality are pretty much identical these days.
 

KC_2020

Member
I gave up on Sony a few years ago when I got tired of the complicated menus and ergonomics, but maybe I should take a fresh look at the system because from a size and technical perspective (and lens selection), it does tick a lot of boxes for me.
SONY completely redesigned their menu system for the A1. They had to for the camera to have any success. I think you'll find it nearly as easy as the SL2 or 1DX II.

The E mount is also one of the most widely adopted so you'll find some outstanding glass available for it, i.e. Voigtlander, in addition to the outstanding G Master SONY lenses. This has also fostered the adapter market and you'll be able to easily use your existing glass on the A1 if you choose to.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
SIZE WEIGHT

Completely dependent on your assumptions on lenses you will use and carry . Differences between the A1 and SL2 is 98 grams . Visit camera size website .

LENSES

Both the A1 and Sl2 are substantially more flexible in accepting adapted lenses than the Fuji . Even if you can find lenses that cover the larger Fuji sensor ..you will be using the weakest area of the lens ..on the edges . Using the Fuji ...use the GFX lenses and accept the size and weight .

Using manual lenses there is zero difference between the A1 and SL2 (except for M lenses ). So Voigtlander , most Zeiss etc are equal .

You will not match the performance of the M lenses on the A1 (plenty of evidence available )with the Sl2 .

AF lenses ...A1 has more options but in the premium class the Sony GM lenses and the Leica SL APO lenses are similar in size (think 67mm filters ) .

AF

The biggest advantage of the A1 is the hugely superior AF system . Eye focus ,focus tracking etc are best available . The Leica SL2 just isn t competitive at all .

The critical differences for YOU :

1. Your M lenses will all work great on the SL2 .

2. The A1 offers the very best AF system available .

Both the A1 and the SL2 offer substantial size and weight saving verse the MF Fuji GFX100S .....neither will match the IQ of the Fuji .
 

algrove

Well-known member
If you print large and shoot landscapes why not use a Phase IQ4150 and a tech cam? Used IQ4 can be had at good prices and a few tech cam lenses weigh in at around 12-15 lbs with DB, camera and 3-4 tech cam lenses. 3:4 is your only draw back. The Alpa au lens are top performers, respectfully priced and light due to no Copal shutter. Keep and use your M lenses on the M.
 
Last edited:

SrMphoto

Active member
In what respects? I’d have thought that the GFX files would be more flexible / malleable than those from full frame cameras.
Difficult to describe in words and is subjective. The improved DR of larger sensors is desirable but often not that significant in practice.
Working with Leica SL2 and Leica lenses (M and L mount) produces something different than GFX or Sony cameras. That difference matters to me.
 

peterm1

Member
If you print large and shoot landscapes why not use a Phase IQ4150 and a tech cam? Used IQ4 can be had at good prices and a few tech cam lenses weigh in at around 12-15 lbs with DB, camera and 3-4 tech cam lenses. 3:4 is your only draw back. The Alpa au lens are top performers, respectfully priced and light due to no Copal shutter. Keep and use your M lenses on the M.
Thanks - I had a Phase IQ3 100 - amazing files and the 32mm HR Rodenstock lens is amazing, but just too much of a hassle to use and carry around IMHO. If I primarily shot landscapes on a tripod though it's a fantastic kit. I shoot handheld in many different environments and move around a lot, hence the desire for lighter, more compact gear.
 

peterm1

Member
Difficult to describe in words and is subjective. The improved DR of larger sensors is desirable but often not that significant in practice.
Working with Leica SL2 and Leica lenses (M and L mount) produces something different than GFX or Sony cameras. That difference matters to me.
I agree with this - the GFX files are more malleable, and maybe I haven't found just the right post-processing formula for my taste, but so far I think I prefer the output of the SL2 (and X1D for that matter).
 

SrMphoto

Active member
I agree with this - the GFX files are more malleable, and maybe I haven't found just the right post-processing formula for my taste, but so far I think I prefer the output of the SL2 (and X1D for that matter).
X1D's files should be at least as malleable as GFX files, but I prefer X1D's output. It is harder for me to decide between X1D and SL2 output.
 

algrove

Well-known member
peterm1
Perhaps a careful read of the 14 June LULA article on Proof is in the Printing-Part III of Sony Sensors is worth a read before you part with your GFX100S. Tried to give you the link but it seems to be too difficult here.
 
Last edited:
Top