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!
Thanks for sharing. I look forward to reading your take. The YouTube videos that I’ve watched of it look good and it looks to be a worthwhile upgrade for those that want more resolution to get more from their Leica lenses. Colors and IQ look outstanding IMO and it makes me glad they’re past the look of the early M240 days personally.
I'd have to agree, the Leica SL2 appears to have incorporated the Panasonic S1R's technology with the addition of Leica's own unique aesthetic and UI twist, which you either adhere to or not. But we all, or at least many of us, had expected this would occur. The S1r can be purchased for considerably less than the SL2, and coupled with L glass—or even Lumix S glass—outputs a remarkably striking image. If I were in the market for a new FF I would find it difficult to justify the Leica premium. In years gone by—circa the film camera era— Leica cameras had been exceptionally durable, but in these times of advancing technology, IMO, durability will have less importance than function. Certainly, if you're out shooting in the Galapagos, or scaling K2 with your camera, you want it to be durable. But there a scarce few modern professional cameras that couldn't fill that bill. And chances are that three or four years down the road GAS will wield its ugly head and a new and improved camera will be on the agenda.Excellent review as always Jono! Many thanks for this and it is always fun again to read your findings and opinion!
Anyway for me it will not be the camera of choice as I simply do not want to buy back into the Leica (SL) ecosystem again as I can get other FF alternatives for a much lower price and similar quality that either have a similar resolution or even more .....
But definitely so one can get the Leica feeling only with a real Leica :thumbs:
If you do not own currently any SL lenses but only a pile of M lenses then it becomes a somewhat difficult decision on today market. I can flange my M lenses also on a Nikon Z7 with pretty excellent results - maybe not as good as on the SL, but hey, then I still can use them in a great and satisfying way without spending additional 3k Euro on just the body. For that I get the stellar 2.8/24-70 Z ans also one or two of the outstanding 1.8 Z mount lenses and call it a day. And still have the advantage of a well functioning Eye AF and in general very excellent PD AF that the SL2 lacks at all.I'd have to agree, the Leica SL2 appears to have incorporated the Panasonic S1R's technology with the addition of Leica's own unique aesthetic and UI twist, which you either adhere to or not. But we all, or at least many of us, had expected this would occur. The S1r can be purchased for considerably less than the SL2, and coupled with L glass—or even Lumix S glass—outputs a remarkably striking image. If I were in the market for a new FF I would find it difficult to justify the Leica premium. In years gone by—circa the film camera era— Leica cameras had been exceptionally durable, but in these times of advancing technology, IMO, durability will have less importance than function. Certainly, if you're out shooting in the Galapagos, or scaling K2 with your camera, you want it to be durable. But there a scarce few modern professional cameras that couldn't fill that bill. And chances are that three or four years down the road GAS will wield its ugly head and a new and improved camera will be on the agenda.
Do I own an S1R? Yes, I do, along with a Fuji GFX100 and many more. But, having been a longterm and stalwart Leica owner/ user I am off that train for good—with the exception of my existing Leica SL glass—and will earmark the $6,000 cost of the SL2 for a new Apple Mac Pro desktop, whenever it is released. But that's my opinion and my way forward, others may feel a burning, inexplicable and uncontrollable desire for the Red Dot.
In regards to "M" lenses what you say may be true, but we are, in essence, no longer talking about Leica technology. Sadly, the costs of R&D are high, and I presume that part, if not all of the logic behind the creation of the L alliance—from Leica's standpoint— was geared toward this end. As a result, and as I have postulated in my earlier post, the SL2 is in many ways a clone of the S1R, as Leica has undoubtedly licensed Panasonic's technology. IMO, the SL2, with the possible exception of its more effective acceptance of "M" lenses, is no greater than its cousin, the Panasonic S1R and time will tell whether or not it is its equal.If you do not own currently any SL lenses but only a pile of M lenses then it becomes a somewhat difficult decision on today market. I can flange my M lenses also on a Nikon Z7 with pretty excellent results - maybe not as good as on the SL, but hey, then I still can use them in a great and satisfying way without spending additional 3k Euro on just the body. For that I get the stellar 2.8/24-70 Z ans also one or two of the outstanding 1.8 Z mount lenses and call it a day. And still have the advantage of a well functioning Eye AF and in general very excellent PD AF that the SL2 lacks at all.
But for Leica hard core fans I fully get the appeal of this great camera - just not for me and the money I can/want to spend on photography gear.
Still and outstanding camera and I applaud Leica for this
M lenses, as great as they are, aren’t the pinnacle of lens design they once were. The SL lenses are better (technically anyway) by every sense of the measure and many competitors have exceeded Leica or gotten close enough to lens design that it’ll likely take pixel peeping to tell the difference. In any case I think much of the debate is purely for the photographers enjoyment so to that I say use what makes you happy and don’t look back. Those M lenses could easily fund your next kit should you choose to sell.If you do not own currently any SL lenses but only a pile of M lenses then it becomes a somewhat difficult decision on today market. I can flange my M lenses also on a Nikon Z7 with pretty excellent results - maybe not as good as on the SL, but hey, then I still can use them in a great and satisfying way without spending additional 3k Euro on just the body. For that I get the stellar 2.8/24-70 Z ans also one or two of the outstanding 1.8 Z mount lenses and call it a day. And still have the advantage of a well functioning Eye AF and in general very excellent PD AF that the SL2 lacks at all.
But for Leica hard core fans I fully get the appeal of this great camera - just not for me and the money I can/want to spend on photography gear.
Still and outstanding camera and I applaud Leica for this
I am a fan of both Leica and Apple products. Users of either one are regularly lambasted for their poor financial judgement. "I can get better tools for half the price if I do X, Y and Z! You must love paying up for the Red Dot/Apple Logo" is the common refrain. Users of both company's products defend their choices with "I use what I like using. It works for me, so why should you care?"I'd have to agree, the Leica SL2 appears to have incorporated the Panasonic S1R's technology with the addition of Leica's own unique aesthetic and UI twist, which you either adhere to or not. But we all, or at least many of us, had expected this would occur. The S1r can be purchased for considerably less than the SL2, and coupled with L glass—or even Lumix S glass—outputs a remarkably striking image. If I were in the market for a new FF I would find it difficult to justify the Leica premium. In years gone by—circa the film camera era— Leica cameras had been exceptionally durable, but in these times of advancing technology, IMO, durability will have less importance than function. Certainly, if you're out shooting in the Galapagos, or scaling K2 with your camera, you want it to be durable. But there a scarce few modern professional cameras that couldn't fill that bill. And chances are that three or four years down the road GAS will wield its ugly head and a new and improved camera will be on the agenda.
Do I own an S1R? Yes, I do, along with a Fuji GFX100 and many more. But, having been a longterm and stalwart Leica owner/ user I am off that train for good—with the exception of my existing Leica SL glass—and will earmark the $6,000 cost of the SL2 for a new Apple Mac Pro desktop, whenever it is released. But that's my opinion and my way forward, others may feel a burning, inexplicable and uncontrollable desire for the Red Dot.
It's odd that you found it necessary to hone in on one word, but I can tell you that from my years of owning Leica cameras going back to the early 1970's, that when asked why I chose to pay a premium for that particular brand, my response would be that aside from the quality of the body and lenses, there was a certain, inexplicable sense of pleasure that I received from ownership. I find that many of today's owner/users, and prospective owner/users, are faced with the same predicament.I am a fan of both Leica and Apple products. Users of either one are regularly lambasted for their poor financial judgement. "I can get better tools for half the price if I do X, Y and Z! You must love paying up for the Red Dot/Apple Logo" is the common refrain. Users of both company's products defend their choices with "I use what I like using. It works for me, so why should you care?"
As you are considering the new Mac Pro - a wonderful machine receiving a torrent of silly disapprobation - I find your use of "inexplicable", well, inexplicable.
Matt
Apologies. I clearly misunderstood your meaning in the last sentence. It read to me as exactly the dismissive criticism usually leveled at Leica users, which I found odd coming from an Apple user. If you meant it as "one uses what one likes, and has no need to explain it, even to oneself", then I understand and completely agree.It's odd that you found it necessary to hone in on one word, but I can tell you that from my years of owning Leica cameras going back to the early 1970's, that when asked why I chose to pay a premium for that particular brand, my response would be that aside from the quality of the body and lenses, there was a certain, inexplicable sense of pleasure that I received from ownership. I find that many of today's owner/users, and prospective owner/users, are faced with the same predicament.
As for the Apple Mac Pro, yes, I am considering its purchase. I am currently using two, ten year old Mac Pro towers that cannot be upgraded to the latest OS. I have tried Windows machines in the past, and still have one that I have repurposed, but in my experience the Windows OS is unreliable and somewhat dodgy, The Apple OS, on the other hand, has been rock solid for the most part.
Not sure whose post you are responding to, but if it was mine, I wonder how in the world you had conjured the word, or even the sentiment of "gullible." That was not the intent of the post, and that word, nor its sentiment appeared anywhere within its content.It's most likely a complicated deal that was struck at the start of the L-mount alliance. It is hard to tell for bystanders who contributes what exactly. But that's fine if it means we get to choose from more competitive camera systems. How the camera came about is a business decision on Leica's part. All we can do is judge its value. If you want to dismiss it on their bussiness affiliations, that is your prerogative (but it is unnecessary to dismiss SL users as gullible) If the new SL2 is as good a camera as the SL is, then I would happily pay that premium to get a camera that works in what I find to be a pleasant way. To me that is like using better film for certain shots. Yes it costs twice as much, but if it gives me the colors or tonal range that I'm after it is much better than faffing about for hours afterwards getting it all just right. But then, I don't buy and use as many camera systems simultaneously. I usually just have one for maximum resolution and one for social events and everyday use.
There is hardly a camera manufacturer left that does it all on its own. Especially smaller ones usually specialise in one area. And especially sensors are often sourced from others.
"If you meant it as "one uses what one likes, and has no need to explain it, even to oneself", then I understand and completely agree."Apologies. I clearly misunderstood your meaning in the last sentence. It read to me as exactly the dismissive criticism usually leveled at Leica users, which I found odd coming from an Apple user. If you meant it as "one uses what one likes, and has no need to explain it, even to oneself", then I understand and completely agree.
Matt
Matt, that's probably true of many products and I suspect that a lot is derived from the opinions of the internet. Some is shaped by people's personal experiences which can be all over the place... and I suspect much is just simple misunderstanding which leads to people feeling somewhat defensive (which of course is just human).Users of both company's products defend their choices with "I use what I like using. It works for me, so why should you care?"
Matt