Leica launched the SL3 60mp camera back in March and has sold pretty well by all accounts. You do pay the Leica tax, but the non-Sigma rebrand lenses from Leica are terrific.
Read the full article
Read the full article
Leica to announce the SL3-S This Week
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Buying a Leica body to use Leica lenses? Anytime!
Buying a Leica body to use Sigma lenses? Better get a Canon and fit it with Canon lenses. You get a much more advanced camera with excellent RF lenses.
Leica is about lenses, original lenses. The SL bodies fine fine, but 5-10 years late...
The M is a different story. There's no alternative to it, if you like rangefinder cameras.
Upvote
0
Any vintage lens works well on SL bodies, far better than Canon, where functionality is crippled, and sensors are not well-matched 35mm or wider.
I wouldn't invest too much into L-mount, but manual focus works great.
While the M has its charm (especially if one shoots 28, 35 or 50), the SL2-S is usable on a much wider range of focal lengths with a the far better EVF and powerful stabilisation. (Yes the Leica is heavier, but it aids stability, too, easier to keep it level.)
All in all, not a mainstream choice and new prices are too high, but buying an older one with heavy depreciation may not be a bad choice.
Upvote
0
I do fully agree, the only thing which bothers me with the SLs isn't AF or any other body feature, but Leica's tendency to use Sigmas.
Once you have experienced Summiluxes, Summicrons, Elmarits and Apo Telyts or Apo Makros Elmarits, it's hard to put money in a Sigma Leica copy.
Sadly, adapting Canon EF to Leica SL3 no longer works the way it did with the first SL (confirmed by Wetzlar).
And yes, the SL3 is beautifully made!
Upvote
0
Better to have more options than no options. I would skip those personally, too, but others can decide if the difference is worth it for them (especially on 24MP). Some want 2.8 zooms (especially 24-70) and it is not worthwhile for Leica to develop these, same with cheaper 1.8 primes.
I'm expecting the 24-70 2.8 II to be rebranded as well at some point, and it looks quite decent.
While the AF can't bother me either (had the 24-90/2.8-4, worked fine in single-AF), there are many other body features that annoy the hell out of me (changing some settings are just slow and more tedious next to Canon).
Looking forward to the R6 III, should be a lot closer to an "all-round midrange" camera, but they will find ways to cripple it.
(It could remain dual SD slots limiting RAW recording, C-Log 3 only, still no level or histogram during recording, switching modes has always been inferior to the R5 line, lesser LCD, jada, jada).
Upvote
0
You must be strong - but ok, i will not post Bobby Tonellis Review. He is completely enthusiastic - hin und weg as we say.Please stop posting such mouth-watering reviews. I got hungry mouths to feed and my will-power is shrinking quickly.
Upvote
0
"Hin und weg"You must be strong - but ok, i will not post Bobby Tonellis Review. He is completely enthusiastic - hin und weg as we say.
I'd rather have him "ganz weg"!
I can no longer feed my starving wife and son on dry bread and rain water!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
