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.

SL2 v SL2s v M10

chiquita

Member
I'm struggling to make a decision to change my M10 for the SL2 or 2s. I would be using my M lenses primarily but would hope to buy the L fit Sigma 40mm 1.4 Art as an af lens. I have no interest in video and the only reason I want to change from the M10 is that I'm getting older and even with the +2 diopter and the Visoflex it's becoming a bit of a strain to focus. I have the 50mm Summilux ASPH, Zeiss 50 1.5 Sonnar and Zeiss 25 2.8 Biogon, also a Voigtlander 35mm 1.2 II ASPH. My worry is that the SL cameras will not give me the same files as my M10. Will I notice a difference? Thank you.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
By "same files", are you considering, color, sharpness, shadow recovery? or something different.

No doubt the shadow recovery between the SL2 and SL2s is considerably different, with the SL2s taking at least a 1.5 stop advantage, which also be the same over the M10.
Color, IMO that's very dependent on the file type you shot, jpg, or raw and if the later, which raw converter you use.

Sharpness, details, etc. the M lenses on the SL2 or SL2s should still produce very good results. I do not have any so I can't report directly on any results, just on what I have read from others. The SL lenses are amazing, both in quality and unfortunately price.

Paul
 
  • Like
Reactions: med

SrMphoto

Active member
By "same files", are you considering, color, sharpness, shadow recovery? or something different.

No doubt the shadow recovery between the SL2 and SL2s is considerably different, with the SL2s taking at least a 1.5 stop advantage, which also be the same over the M10.
Color, IMO that's very dependent on the file type you shot, jpg, or raw and if the later, which raw converter you use.

Sharpness, details, etc. the M lenses on the SL2 or SL2s should still produce very good results. I do not have any so I can't report directly on any results, just on what I have read from others. The SL lenses are amazing, both in quality and unfortunately price.

Paul
SL2 vs. SL2-S vs. M10

SL2-S is only about half a stop better than M10. That is negligible IMO.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
I have used all three of these cameras and even have a half dozen trips to Venice to compare . Based on your images you gave us ..you do not require a fast AF camera . You also do not require a high ISO champion . I had no trouble photographing Venice with a 50/1.4 asph using the M8,M9 or the M10.

The M is by far my preferred camera for Venice because of the size ,weight and superb M lenses . The issue is can you adequately focus the RF or master the Viso as a work around . I don t see a lot of wide open captures in your images ...maybe you would like to have more but need the DOF to get a decent hit rate of in focus captures .

Both the Sl2 and the SL2-S are solutions that would improve your hit ratio but at the cost of carrying a larger and much heavier camera body . I don t agree with Lou that the Sl2 is a brick (when compared to other top mirrorless systems ) and certainly the M lenses offset to some degree that issue . But its not a M sized kit which you know is pretty nice for street shooting . (Google camera size and do your own comparisons ).

If I was trading out of the M10 for an Sl2 it would be the 47mp Sl2 ....those Venice images would look better with the 47MP captures .

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Color and the aesthetic you have produced appears like a classic negative .....the SL range looks more like Kodachrome ..but both can create similar looks thru post processing . Google the Kodachrome Project . The aesthetic produced by the lens will be similar .

==++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One additional thought ...I would consider the Q2 as a possible 2nd body with an SL2 . I could easily shoot 100% of my photographs in Venice with a Q2 . At 47MP you can use the in camera cropping to create 28/35/50 FOV with plenty of MPs . AF is terrific and fast so you can shoot wide open . Batteries are same as SL2.

You can find used Q2 bodies for about $4000. Look at MacFilos for a nice post about using the Q2 with in camera cropping followed by LR enhance to bring back the MPs. (You can do the same with C1 and Topaz Gigapixel AI).
 

chiquita

Member
I have used all three of these cameras and even have a half dozen trips to Venice to compare . Based on your images you gave us ..you do not require a fast AF camera . You also do not require a high ISO champion . I had no trouble photographing Venice with a 50/1.4 asph using the M8,M9 or the M10.

The M is by far my preferred camera for Venice because of the size ,weight and superb M lenses . The issue is can you adequately focus the RF or master the Viso as a work around . I don t see a lot of wide open captures in your images ...maybe you would like to have more but need the DOF to get a decent hit rate of in focus captures .

Both the Sl2 and the SL2-S are solutions that would improve your hit ratio but at the cost of carrying a larger and much heavier camera body . I don t agree with Lou that the Sl2 is a brick (when compared to other top mirrorless systems ) and certainly the M lenses offset to some degree that issue . But its not a M sized kit which you know is pretty nice for street shooting . (Google camera size and do your own comparisons ).

If I was trading out of the M10 for an Sl2 it would be the 47mp Sl2 ....those Venice images would look better with the 47MP captures .

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Color and the aesthetic you have produced appears like a classic negative .....the SL range looks more like Kodachrome ..but both can create similar looks thru post processing . Google the Kodachrome Project . The aesthetic produced by the lens will be similar .

==++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One additional thought ...I would consider the Q2 as a possible 2nd body with an SL2 . I could easily shoot 100% of my photographs in Venice with a Q2 . At 47MP you can use the in camera cropping to create 28/35/50 FOV with plenty of MPs . AF is terrific and fast so you can shoot wide open . Batteries are same as SL2.

You can find used Q2 bodies for about $4000. Look at MacFilos for a nice post about using the Q2 with in camera cropping followed by LR enhance to bring back the MPs. (You can do the same with C1 and Topaz Gigapixel AI).

Thank you Roger, this is very helpful. I also used my M10 and the 50mm Summilux ASPH in Venice quite happily, with a Sony A7RII and ZM25 Biogon for the wider shots. Re the Q, I already have a Sony RX1RII as my hi res af camera. It's mainly my eyesight wether using the Visoflex or the RF on the M10. I'm looking for a simpler experience, like the Sony A9 I also have but with the Leica look ;)
 
Top