Used Leica SL or new Sony A9?

Huss

Mentor
Local time
8:25 PM
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
9,859
Which one would you pick to use Leica M glass on? Money is pretty much the same. No need for AF or 20fps etc. Just the best non M camera to use M lenses on.
Huff says the Sony A9 is the best ever for Leica glass, but he says everything is the best ever ...
But maybe it is? Also which one has the better EVF? SL's is bigger, but Sony's is meant to not black out (even though I didn't really notice that on the SL but I am only a single shot user).
:confused:
 
That's a bit of an apples and oranges thing and I don't really know that much about either camera ... but based on how much I like my 240 I'd probably choose the Leica. I hate to admit it but it (the SL) would have a definite emotional edge over the Sony for me even if their outputs were identical.

Being a proponent of the 'it's not the camera it's the photographer' dictum I'm a little embarrassed that I would ever say such a thing ... but there it is! :eek: :p
 
I think you will see the difference in 35 mm & wider.

Sony A9 is a sports camera. Think about the A7 vs SL

I have never been happy looking thru any mirrorless. Advantage is ?? Every lens is longer except just the camera being a bit thicker.

To each his own.
 
That's a bit of an apples and oranges thing

But is it? They are both 24mp FF mirrorless cameras that need an adapter to use M lenses. Both have state of the art EVFs (not sure which one is better). Money is about the same getting a used SL vs new A9.
 
Have you used any Sony cameras previously? They have wonderful technology on paper with some cutting edge sensors, but ultimately Sony cameras are the antithesis of why many of us like Leica.
 
Leica provides lens profiles to optimize the performance of their M lenses on the SL. No such optimization can exist for those same lenses on any Sony body. For that reason alone, there's really no comparison regards which body would serve better for M lenses.

G
 
But is it? They are both 24mp FF mirrorless cameras that need an adapter to use M lenses. Both have state of the art EVFs (not sure which one is better). Money is about the same getting a used SL vs new A9.


As I said I know nothing about either camera and am reduced to making entirely emotionally based decisions in these matters Huss! lol :D

I would suggest that you however be far more sensible though because neither option is exactly cheap. :eek:
 
Sony has to have better service than Leica. I've never seen service as bad as Leicas unless you're a dentist. I no longer trust Leica. Sony I'd be willing to give them a chance. Everyone I e talked to that owns Sony loves them with no complaints.
 
A Kolari mod'd Sony is the way to go. I'd say A7RII if you're interested in actual IQ. The sensor in that cam is still the industry standard for 35mm, bar none. Leica Kool-Aid drinkers may say that the 'lens profiles' are the magic, butttt turns out Adobe has them built into LR now so...get a Kolari Sony. The A9 looks dope but you actually give up IQ for the speed and durability. It also doens't seem like they've made a generational move re the EVF.

The SL is a joke. Leica should be ashamed of themselves, but we're talking about the company that put out the G Star Raw D Lux.

Personally I'd get an M10 if I wanted to spend more than I should.
 
Personally I'd get an M10 if I wanted to spend more than I should.

I tried one out and did not feel that it gave me any advantages in actual use over the M240 I already had. And the pics that people have posted with the M10 - very nice but again I do not see any difference.

I don't know if the profiles issue is moot as while LR does have M lens profiles if you shoot in RAW, so you can pick anything you want, I don't think it corrects for pink edges etc. From what I've seen only for distortion and vignetting.

Right now I'm only musing really, but one thing may lead to another.

And yes, Leica service does absolutely suck. So there is that. The people in the LeicaStores have been wonderful, but if the camera needs to get sent to NJ (in the US) then enjoy watching the seasons change...
 
That SL story is a bit sobering ... I'll be interested to see how that pans out. :rolleyes:

Leica and other manufacturers need to keep in mind that on the inter web you will be judged by your worst performance ... not your best! Something like that has the potential to klil a lot of sales of what is a very high end camera.
 
To me that camera is the Fuji GFX.

Larger sensor, more MP, wider dynamic range, much wider range of (adapted) lenses

I've not shot with the GFX but would expect it to smoke both. Medium format digital is in a different class. It's more than just pixels. It's like going from 35mm to 6x9 film. I had a Hasselblad digital system and it smoked smaller sensors.
 
I would not touch SL with teen feet pole after reading this:
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/273028-just-a-little-bit-grumpy-at-leica-right-now/

I would not use same pole to touch Sony product, because of the edge smearing problems and so-so rendering of M lenses on Sony.

Have Leica M glass? Use it where it belongs.

Nonsense. That same scenario could, and has, happened with any camera. There have actually been very very few instances of SL problems since the camera shipped in November 2015. And of course, any time there is a problem or kerfuffle, everyone whines and moans twice as hard if it's a Leica. Just nonsense.

I do agree about one thing, though: I use my M lenses on the M4-2 and M-D, they are a better ergonomic fit on the M body than on the SL body. I use mostly R and SL series lenses on the SL. That doesn't mean they don't work well on the SL, they just feel a little awkward and the R and SL lenses work better.

M lenses on the Sony bodies suck because of the sensor stack. Been there, done that, dumped the Sony.

I've been adapting M lenses to various mirrorless systems since 2009. In the end, M lenses work best on M bodies. The best mirrorless body aside from the SL to use them on was the APS-C Ricoh GXR with the M-mount camera unit, a specially designed sensor optimized for M lenses. They're certainly not going to work to best effect on a larger than FF 35mm sized sensor format unless you really don't mind degraded performance at the edges of the FoV. At which point, why spend all the money for M mount lenses?

G
 
Steve HUff:

"I can use my Leica glass... almost any lens via adapters. THIS A9 is better than a Leica M9 in every way, yes, even for Leica glass."

Comments?
 
The Sony A9 is intended to be a PJ/sports pro body, and much younger. If you are into low light or high frame rates, it is a class or two above the SL. But for most applications, that difference will be irrelevant...
 
Steve HUff:

"I can use my Leica glass... almost any lens via adapters. THIS A9 is better than a Leica M9 in every way, yes, even for Leica glass."

Comments?

Just because it fits, doesn't mean it works optimally (it also depends on how picky you are about technical performance). Like the image smearing problem you'll run into with wider angle lenses on all stock Sony mirrorless cameras (and to a lesser extent on the SL) caused by the sensor stack design vs. the digital M series cameras where the sensor is optimized for the requirements of the M lenses.

If you want a live view camera that performs better than the M240, then IMO it's the M10. While granted it's not as refined in live view as the latest mirrorless cameras, it's a considerable refinement over the M240 in this and other areas, just as the M240 was a considerable refinement over the M9.

If it has to be a non-M camera, then I would go with the SL. While my experience with it and M lenses indicates there are some image quality compromises with some wide angle lenses compared to using those same lenses on a digital M, it's not as bad as stock Sony performance. UI is also better, IMO.
 
Back
Top