Leica Q2, SL2-S, or Canon R5?

G

giganova

Well-known
Local time
8:04 PM
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,610
I am finally ready to leave my decades of film photography with M cameras behind ... and jump into digital photography! 😃

So I rented a Canon R5 and went to my local Leica store to check out the SL2-S and Q2. All three are fabulous cameras, can't go wrong with any of them. But I am having a hard time deciding and was hoping you could weigh in. I am a documentary photographer with lots of travel, mostly documenting "the human condition" (whatever that means). I prefer a fixed 35mm-ish fixed lens and have no need for a zoom lens. I shoot almost everything in aperture priority, occasionally in P mode when I need to "point & shoot" due to lack of time when things are evolving fast in front of my camera.
  • Q2: Coming from M cameras, I instantly felt "at home." The small form factor and size are perfect (even better with a Thumbs-Up). Much smaller than I thought, which is a good thing for me because I can carry it around all day. Even though it has a rather wide 28mm fixed lens (I prefer 35mm), I find the crop modes appealing and would probably set it at the 35mm crop mode so I can see in the finder what is coming into the frame from the sides ... just like my film Ms! ;-) The Q2 is the most expensive of the three cameras but still within my budget, so no major concerns here, especially the "Traveler Kit" that includes an extra battery. Love the aperture ring at the lens! Cons: (1) What really bothers me is the lack of a USB-C port: in my line of work, I typically shoot hundreds of pictures, then plug the camera into the USB port of my car, drive to a new location and the battery is fully charged when I arrive. Not sure how I would manage battery life for a whole day or days of shooting "on the move" without a UBS-C port unless I buy more (expensive $280!) batteries and/or there is a fast charging solution for cars, airplanes, etc. (2) While the viewfinder is nice, it is not nearly as good as that of the SL2-S or R5. (3) Not crazy about the single memory card slot, but I guess I have to trust technology that I won't loose photos.
  • SL2-S: Gorgeous camera with a perfect grip. "Only" 24 Mpix, but I'm OK with that. Viewfinder is superior to that of the Q2 because it has a much higher resolution (5.7 vs 3.7 M-dots) and a noticeably larger magnification. The eye cup is much more comfy than that of the R5 and especially that of the Q2 (my right temple started to hurt after playing with the Q2 only for a short while in the store). Love the display at the top. Has a USB-C port and dual card slots. Good weather seals. Cons: Schlepping that (surprisingly) big & heavy beast around all day will be quite the workout! Couldn't use a wrist-strap because it is too big & heavy.
  • R5: Similar to the SL2-S in terms of specs but with more pixel, and a bit lighter & smaller. The autofocus of the R5 is simply stunning! This would be the first camera where I would never have to worry about focus, it is truly amazing. Viewfinder has a much higher resolution and magnification than the Q2, simply magnificent to look through. Love the screen on the top and the USB-C charging port. Lenses are cheap. This could be a true work horse I'd toss it in my bag and not worry about it being scratched and banged around. I find it a big plus that you can flip the display at the back around and against the body of the camera so it doesn't distract and protects the glass (and presumably save battery). Good weather seals. Costs a little less than the SL2-S kit that is currently "on sale" but not by much, especially if you factor in the more expensive CFExpress cards it needs. Cons: (1) Obviously not a Leica which I always find very inspiring and make we want to take pictures. (2) Even though much of the body is made of magnesium, it feels a bit plasticy, especially the 35/2 and 50/2 lenses which are not weather sealed. (3) A gazillion of buttons & wheels!
These are my initial impressions.
Any thoughts? Thanks!
 
Last edited:
I have the Q2M not the Q2 and it’s my favourite camera because it’s very portable with terrific image quality. The only shortcoming is the crap AF. But it’s Leica and you don’t buy Leica for the tech. Just don’t compare AF performance with a Canon 1n. Oh yeah…the lens is not a 28mm but closer to a 25mm. It is my default camera and if I am going out this camera will be with me. I sold it once due to the crap AF but soon realized this is my ideal camera one with a lens almost as wide as a 24mm.

I also have the SL2. The Leica SL lenses are big and heavy. Me no like. Opposite of what makes the Q2 a great camera. It takes great pictures and I have it with me right now with the 24-90 zoom on a long road trip. Unbeatable image quality but I frown when I pick it up.
 
"I hate this camera" LOL

In terms of price, the Q2 is $5,800 and the SL2-S kit with a 35/2 lens is now $4,900 (instead of $6,200 because of Leica's customer appreciation month). That makes the SL2-S attractive.
 
giganova said:
"I hate this camera" LOL

In terms of price, the Q2 is $5,800 and the SL2-S kit with a 35/2 lens is now $4,900 (instead of $6,200 because of Leica's customer appreciation month).
Click to expand...

I edited out the I hate part. I don’t hated once I see the photos in Lightroom. It a camera that rivals my Hasselblad 500CM 3 lens kit in many ways. What’s good about the SL2 is the sensor. The sensor was optimised for M lenses. I have the L adapters and can use my M on it and it’s a great camera. Only the SL lenses are big and heavy. The new 35/2 and 50/2 are normal sized and as far as I know worthy of the Leica brand.
 
I wanted weather resistant and opted for the Xpro3 for that reason and some of the (35mm equivalent) Fujino lenses that are weather resistant, too. The camera is a little larger than an M, has dual card slots, USB-charging and the switchable OVF/EVF with the optional viewable mini-EVF in the OVF is perfect for manual focusing.
 
I have serious lust for the Q2. If anything happened to my M 240, that's probably the path I'd find a way to follow, despite the expense.
 
giganova said:
the SL2-S kit with a 35/2 lens is now $4,900 (instead of $6,200 because of Leica's customer appreciation month).
Click to expand...
Where did you find that price?

I bought the SL2-S a year ago -and traded my defunct Leica M-E. I did not go for the Q2 because I found the lens too wide -it's more like a 24mm than a true 28mm; the RAW files are huge @ 85Mb which results in slow transfer speeds etc...; the viewfinder is not great. The best features of the SL2-S: a superb viewfinder; a minimalist menu; the overall versatility of the camera; very easy to use with m-mount lenses -the magnifying function is so good that you don't need focus peaking. The downside: heft and weight. I ditched the Leica strap and replaced it with the wide PeakDesign one which makes it much easier to carry the camera all day long. Cheers, OtL
 
Last edited:
I'm currently living in Vietnam. From what I've gathered so far, 'the deal' does not apply there. This said I'd probably still not buy the Leica SL 35mm Summicron lens. Instead, I'd go for the Sigma 35mm f/.2 which is cheaper and as good. I haven't looked into the Lumix equivalent lens but perhaps you should before pulling the trigger. Cheers, OtL
 
Hmm, I'm a few generations behind.
I had a Q and an SL.
The images from the Q were superb. It was a convenient camera to carry around. Build quality superb, I never had an issue with the auto-focus. In the end I just didn't want to shoot with the wider than 28mm viewpoint. 35mm is my favourite. I compared my Q with an M 28mm, both on a tripod and the Q was wider. I'm not sure I buy into the crop facility on the Q2, it would probably annoy me.
I briefly had an SL but returned it. The IQ didn't blow me away (to be honest, I know other people love it), the main issue was it was big and bulky. I couldn't see carrying it around all day.
I might prefer an SL2s?
With 'decades of M experience', why not an M10R or M11 with a nice 35mm lens? I'm mostly shooting with an M240 and 35.
 
Whitten said:
Hmm, I'm a few generations behind.
I had a Q and an SL.
The images from the Q were superb. It was a convenient camera to carry around. Build quality superb, I never had an issue with the auto-focus. In the end I just didn't want to shoot with the wider than 28mm viewpoint. 35mm is my favourite. I compared my Q with an M 28mm, both on a tripod and the Q was wider. I'm not sure I buy into the crop facility on the Q2, it would probably annoy me.
I briefly had an SL but returned it. The IQ didn't blow me away (to be honest, I know other people love it), the main issue was it was big and bulky. I couldn't see carrying it around all day.
I might prefer an SL2s?
With 'decades of M experience', why not an M10R or M11 with a nice 35mm lens? I'm mostly shooting with an M240 and 35.
Click to expand...
I find the digital M + lens cost prohibitive: an M11 and a 35/2 lens would be almost $12k, whereas the Q2 is under $6k and the SL2-S kit with a 35/2 lens is under $5k.
 
I'm not sure what you expect us to tell you in this thread. You seem to be thinking about the three cameras in the right way. Now it is up to you to figure out what you want.

That said, if you've been an M user for many years... you cannot just make this a practical choice that you make with your head. You know you have some desires that are irrational. Haha. The Canon isn't going to cut it! The Q3 is coming too.
 
My rationale for the Q2M was for the Monochrom feature and the AF because my eyes aren’t as sharp as before. And after cataract surgery my night vision was also shot. The SL2 was also for the AF option and also I already owned M lenses from 25 years of using rangefinders. If I had gone to another system I would also need to buy the lenses. if I lost everything and had to start fresh I would probably just get the Q2M and at the same time shoot film with my Rolleiflex and invest in a Hasselblad scanner.
 
Long time M user here still use both film M and digital M10, M10M.
Tried the SL2-S ; great image tonality, but found even one body too large to carry around, so sold it.
The CL got more use, but ultimately the range of lenses did not fit what I wanted to carry, so sold it.
Very happy with the X100V as an everyday carry M like camera. The Q2 lacks the back button AF, tilt screen and pocket-ability I find so useful.
 
Reading between the lines, I don't think you'll be happy with the R5: you seem to prefer Leica and the cameras seem to motivate your shooting and fuel your passion. That is a very important factor! Beyond that, I think the Q2: you're used to a small camera (your film Ms) and it sounds like a single focal length (with option for digital cropping) suits you fine. The battery issue is what it is -- I doubt it will really cramp your style once you are in the field with it.

If you and the Q2 don't get a long, trade it in on an SL2S. Not a huge financial risk there.

Good luck and enjoy the process!
 
I used M4-2 from 2015 to 2021 like it was no tomorrow. Everyday, everywhere. I worn it out.
After getting M-E 220 in 2016 , I realized what (any current) digital M is even more flaky than film M.
And it is not just a rain related...

Q2 is about to be replaced by even more expensive Q3 in this year. 300 USD just for a battery. SL2-2 included.

At the end it is what is more important to you:

Leica feel (with mostly undistinguishable pictures from the rest of digital) - welcome to be hosed and be ready to produce excuse - "but image quality"...
Or just ditch this feel and keep learning more about digital cameras.
You'll realize Canon R(any) is nothing to write home about it, despite Canon been known for AF been superior to Leica. And service :)

I used to travel a lot. I got M4-2 worn out, but it was still taking pictures, despite failure.
Just like you, film is not something I could afford anymore (mostly for time it takes).
Sure I want to continue with Leica. But I'm more confident with tiny and cheap Ricoh GRD III to take on people and not too big Pentax K-3 with couple of cheap zooms makes me lough out loud at Canon "weather sealing" call it R and L.
 
Maybe the Q2 Traveler Kit (free extra battery and leather wrap) is there to push out the remaining Q2 stock before the Q3 arrives? In terms of image quality, the Q3 seems to be the same as the Q2 -- if the rumors are true; main difference being a better viewfinder, USB-C port, and an improved AF (phase detection instead of contrast-based) ... exactly what I complained about in my first post. That and the wide 28mm lens are the reasons why I didn't order one yet. If the Q3 has a version with a 35mm lens, I'd get one, but I'm not sure if I should hold my breath and postpone my purchase.
 
On the Leica forum we are discussing the price of a used M240. It isn't that affordable considering it is three generations old (pre M10 and M11).
The Q2 is an extremely popular camera, so I'm not sure prices are going to slide that much when a Q3 comes on the scene.
The Q customers seem to be split. Most are in love with the 28mm lens. I see a lot of potential buyers (like myself) who tried it, sold it, but would buy it again if it was a 35mm lens. No indications that is going to happen however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top