Has anyone seen a table-style comparison of features between the Sony A7R II and the new Leica SL yet? [UPDATE: DigitalRev's Bokeh blog has a simplified point-by-point comparison chart. Although one that doesn't mention focusing speed or low-light focusing abilities. Thanks to Chad for pointing this out. —Ed.]
We're aware that the Party line is that the SL doesn't compete with anything except top pro DSLRs, because that's the market it's allegedly intended for. But actually it does compete with other kinds of cameras...even among pros, but certainly among the rest of us.
I'm just curious as to who besides a dyed-in-the-wool Leicaphile (and those certainly do exist) would choose an SL as a hard-headed buying decision. As I said, I liked it when I tried it in New York and don't think there's anything the matter with it. But when it comes to an actual purchase decision, the Sonys have IBIS, which for me would win the comparison even without the price advantages; and, if the price advantage doesn't matter and you were going to spend SL money anyway, you can now get a poor man's S—a Pentax 645Z—with twice as many pixels and a 43.8 x 32.8mm medium-format sensor—for the same money an SL costs. (Actually $450 less—the lowest price ever for the Pentax.)
I'll have to ask Ctein if he's still considering buying a new camera with a sniblet of his Saturn Run
money. He's an old Pentax medium-format shooter (although he's also not sentimental about such connections). But given the unprecedentedly low current price of the 645Z, not to mention its natural suitability for the kind of work he tends to do, I wonder if it tempts him at all.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
TOP's links!
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Nigel: "Kirk had some thoughts about the SL a little while back, on how it might actually make quite a bit of sense to some professionals. The things about the Leica which appeal to him aren't really provided by the Pentax. Given the prices, the discussion is a little rarified for relative paupers like me, but for what it's worth, having made the transition to mirrorless cameras, I've no interest in going back."
scott kirkpatrick: "There is a sub-party line that is worth considering. The SL provides a platform on which a lost generation of superb Leica R lenses finally get to show what they can do. There's extensive discussion of this at Leica User Forum (with moderate signal to noise ratio) and pictures at GetDPI.com."
Mike replies: Jono Slack is a very good guy. Consider this statement from his SL review: "This article is not meant to be a critical review. My loyalty as a camera tester is to Leica." Would that all reviewers were so honest!
To your point, though, can't you mount R lenses to an A7[x]?
hesse: "Unfortunately in German. Choose 'Vergleichen mit' next 'Hersteller' next 'Kamera.' Voilà, a table-style comparison."
Geoff Wittig: "I like David Hobby's witty observation that you date your camera, but you marry your lenses. You have to take the long view if you want to avoid some serious buyer's remorse. So the choice between these worthy cameras, obviously depending on your subject matter and shooting style, should logically boil down to lenses. (Of course, logic takes a back seat when it comes to buying a Leica, which is self-evidently a Veblen good.) Sony's line has some great glass, but it still has big gaps (like a lack of fast long lenses). The Pentax medium format system has some really excellent lenses, but the new ones are generally thousands of dollars per lens, and fast medium format glass is basically a self-contradiction.
"As for the SL, as soon as you put that red dot on a camera, the price of lenses explodes. $5,000 for a variable aperture standard zoom? Yikes! The Sony A7rII and a really good lens would cost less.
Mike replies: Maybe the major function of the SL is to make the A7RII look cheap by comparison. It's still a very expensive camera, we should remember.
Godfrey: "For decades I salivated over Leica R lenses, the Leicaflex SL and, much later, the R8. I couldn't afford them, but on the occasions when I could borrow a body and a lens or two, they produced the kind of image quality I had dreamed about. Then Time stood still. Leica cancelled the R line and introduced the S line. I could no more afford the S than the R a decade before. But R prices started to drop. I started picking and choosing, and over three years and the exchange of ~$5500 or so, I accreted a dozen extraordinary R lenses and three bodies—an R8 and two Leicaflex SLs.
"Shooting film with this fabled equipment is every bit the dream I'd had all those years. The problem is that I now prefer to shoot with digital most of the time. The SL announcement took me by surprise. I was expecting a camera like this but not for another year. I'd had an order in for a new Monochrom 246, but something tickled me to cancel it two months ago. The new SL body and 24–90mm lens costs just about the same as a Monochrome 246 and a Summilux 50mm.
"At present, stack an R Adapter M on top of an M Adapter T and you can fit nearly all R lenses, use lens codes that configure the camera for the lens properly, and massage the files to get the best out of them. Yes! This is my solution. The same lenses that new would have cost me over $50K, a new camera with its own dedicated lens that's simply diverting money I'd already allocated to buy a new camera....
"My camera should be here next week sometime. I don't need to compare it to anything else, it is the solution I've been waiting for. I'll let you know what I think after I use it for a month. :-) "
Bernard: "I am seriously considering the SL.
"I've been shooting the Canon 5D Mark II since it came out, using Contax and Rollei Zeiss lenses, some of which I've owned since I was a teenager. It's all about the lenses, as far as I am concerned, and about building your composition from your plane of focus.
"The newer Canon SLRs are a bust. Their viewfinders are soft, and overlaid with a thick layer of useless information. It's like looking at your frame through a frosted window with iron bars and Christmas lights.
"They've negated the one true advantage of reflex cameras: the ability to view your frame in a clear window surrounded by darkness. To me the view through an SLR's viewfinder is like coming home again. In this case, it's like coming home and finding your home has been replaced by an all-night convenience store.
"Nikon's viewfinders aren't much better, and the lenses that I love don't mount on them, even with adapters.
"Sonys are non-starters. I can't operate them with gloves on, they don't seem very sturdy, their viewfinders aren't great, and I don't trust the company. I know any camera I buy will be replaced in 6 months by something that fixes current bugs and introduces new ones, leaving me holding the bag. What's cheaper, buying a Sony every year or a Leica every five years?
"The Pentax is way too bulky. I had a 6x7 back in the day and I couldn't take it anywhere. If it doesn't fit in a Domke F3, with two lenses, it's just too big.
"Obviously the SL has downsides. The price is obscene, made worse by the fact that I live in Canada. The files only work in Lightroom, which is a whole new workflow. It has an electronic viewfinder, adding an extra layer of "mediation" to the view.
"Twenty-four MP isn't a problem. That's the sweet spot for hand-held work, and it's plenty for printing.
"Lens price isn't an issue either. I won't be buying any autofocus lenses, or zooms. I've been down that road, and it didn't lead anywhere I wanted to go.
I'm not a big fan of stabilization. It can do weird things outside the plane of focus. Plus, scenes that are darker than 1/30 wide open at ISO 1600 have terrible light that needs to be augmented.
"Long story short: Leica has created unique camera. I think it will appeal to photographers who like the SLR experience: peering into a dark window, looking at an image in isolation.
"It doesn't appeal to the gadget freaks, the resolution-at-any-cost crowd, or to the brand snobs (an M will get you there much cheaper).
"I don't know if I will get one, but I will definitely try it to see if we gel. Even if it isn't for me, maybe it will coax Nikon and Canon into making SLRs with decent viewfinders and limited bulk."
Mike replies: If you buy one, will you buy it through my links, pretty please?
I like your line about the convenience store.
