All material ©2026 Kirk Tuck and presented exclusively at www.visualsciencelab.blogspot.com If you are reading this on another site, without proper attribution, it is not an authorized use of the material. If you are reading this on unauthorized site DO NOT CLICK on any links in the body copy as it may infect your computer with serious viruses. Sorry to have to put this warning here but a recent search turned up dozens of similar infringements. Thanks for your authentic readership.
Loving the depiction of angels in paintings.
At the Blanton Museum. Upstairs in the classical gallery.
Every time I buy a camera it's mostly not because there was a pressing need for the new camera but more that I just fantasized that the newest or coolest camera would be more fun to shoot, more fun to carry along with me and this would result in providing a lot more "keepers" (or "bangers" as our UK counterparts might say...) than whatever camera we were infatuated with before the new one came along. But, as a believer in raw data I just had to look through last year's catalogs to see, really, which camera or cameras I picked up and used most of the time...
While I had high hopes for, and sunk a lot of cash into the Leica M cameras and lenses, and really like the results I get when the stars line up just right, they were nowhere close to being the day-to-day workhorse cameras I imagined they would be. If I were less promiscuous about focal length choices and were willing to limit myself entirely to 35mm or 50mm focal lengths I imagine my hit rates and my "like" rates would have been a lot higher. But... sometimes I want something wide and sometimes I want something a bit longer and forcing the Ms to be all terrain photo vehicles is harder than I thought it might be.
At one point last year I thought that life would be simpler, better, more productive and easier if I just stocked up on Leica's Q cameras. A Q2 28mm (which I already have). And adding a Q3-43 to get me into the sweet spot (for me) of focal length choices and, in the case of the "43", the ability to crop in on a 60 megapixel sensor to create a convenient mild "faux zoom" for longer focal lengths. The bubble of that idea was more or less burst when I took a Q camera with me to Chicago on vacation but ended up using the little Leica DLUX8 (AKA: lil' spotty) for just about every image I contemplated. The zoom on the smaller camera made it easier, and the size, more fun. So now it's obvious! It must be the little, compact DLUX...
(side note: our lawn guy of 28 years is here cutting the grass and going overboard on leaf blowing. A gas powered leaf blower that seems as loud as a car with no muffler... (exaggerating) and it's impacting my ability to type in a straight line. Bear with me...).
Nope. Even without its new dust spot the DLUX8 has always been, for me, more of a casual camera. The kind we take when photography is secondary on our agenda when stepping out into the real world. Not the camera we take on an expedition or a job. More fun. Less serious.
When I look at the numbers the SL2 is the camera I reach for most often when doing fun, personal work and almost always the camera of choice when I was working for commercial (and non-profit) clients. And that started me down the long and twisted path of trying to figure out why the camera seems, for me, to be the preferred tool for all kinds of image creation. Why does it offer that the other cameras don't. And why I ended up with the Leica mirrorless cameras after buying, using and trying to like almost every other major camera brand on the market. (But this is less about "Leica" being "better" and more about speaking to personal taste; mostly born of preferences written in my consciousness about photography over a long period of time --- and enough usage of each system to encourage calluses on both hands from holding cameras too long, every day.
When I started taking photography seriously, around 1977, there were only a few ways an impoverished university student could go when it came to acquiring workable cameras. There were several good compacts made by Olympus and Canon. And others, I'm sure... Regardless of which camp you found yourself in the compacts came with their version of a standard, normal lens. Usually either 38m or 40mm. In both camps the better compacts had fixed lenses with surprisingly fast apertures. I ended up with a Canonet QL 17. A rugged, all metal camera that would work just fine in a manual mode without a battery or which could provide a shutter priority auto option if you had...a battery. The lens boasted an f1.7 aperture but, in all honesty, you were much better off choosing f2.8 or maybe f5.6 if sharp images were your goal. I bought mine, new, from Capitol Camera for about $125. A princely sum for a Texan student living without a car, in an un-air conditioned dormitory on campus...
I just walked over to a filing cabinet here and my office and there, amid Alpa cameras and lenses, Nikon F and F2cameras and three or four inexpensive, older digital compact cameras was nested my original Canonet QL17 (the "QL" stood for quick load...). I'm in the process of cleaning it off.... It was a darling camera which was a fine introduction to basic, black and white photography. Loved it. Spend months in Europe in 1978 where the QL proved itself to be a very competent backpacking camera. When I looked at it again today I opened the little battery door, hoping not to find an old battery and lots of corrosion. I was pleasantly surprised to find, instead of a basic battery, an after market accessory that converted the camera from needing mercury infused PX 625 batteries to one that could us silver oxide batteries. An S76, I think. Nice. I might be able to rehabilitate the metering and auto controls, although I'd see that just as a bonus.
As great as that little camera is I soon got sucked into the whirlpool of bigger, better cameras. Meaning...that you could change lenses on them and look through the lens to focus and compose. Back in 1977 we used 35mm films like Tri-X and we couldn't do vigorous cropping without jeopardizing detail in our shots. While a 40mm lens is pretty cool I learned (mostly from reading photo magazines) just how many situations might benefit from a long (135mm) telephoto or a wider, 28mm focal length. It seemed obvious in those times that a camera which could interchange lenses would be an obvious necessity for someone who wanted to take more than snapshots. But I was still working within a very limited budget.
The least expensive, good quality, interchangeable lens from Canon (developed a brand loyalty early on) was the lowly TX. A solid metal camera that was fully manual in its operation. A top shutter speed of 1/500th of a second. But the one nod towards beginner usability was a built-in, through the lens light meter. I bought one of these remarkably simple cameras and it came bundled with a 50mm f1.8 FD mount lens. I was in heaven. Wearing this rig over my shoulder made me feel like an up and coming professional --- long before I considered it possible to make photography a full time career.
My second lens, made for the Canon FD mount, was a 135mm f2.8 Vivitar lens. Sounds odd but it was really very, very good. At least it was a match for the film's resolution. I used it for pretty much everything and it was a couple years later when I got around to buying a wide angle lens. By then I was starting to get jobs around Austin and a 24mm f2.8 FD lens was just the ticket for taking interior shots of new homes, condos and business office buildings. That lens and a tripod were the tools that made photography, at first for me, a viable, profitable pursuit.
From then until much later, maybe 1996, the business ran on a series of full sized, professional 35mm SLR cameras along with the right lenses for the way I saw stuff. In the studio, from about 1988 onward, the 35mm SLRs were augmented by a series of professional medium format film cameras. Hasselblad and Rollei mostly but with an occasional detour into Bronica and even the Mamiya 6 cameras. But we always, always had a big-ass SLR as the bedrock, the foundation of my photography. All the way up through the Nikon F4 and F5 and then on into the Leica R8 cameras. I was firmly acculturated into the brotherhood of big, professional cameras. Extra points given to cameras that weren't totally dependent on batteries for basic operation. This kind of allegiance to a type, if not a brand, makes an impression on one's idea of what constitutes a working camera after 48 years or so. Big, sturdy, 100% finder image, reliable, and ubiquitous enough that borrowing lenses from other photographers when needed was easy and straightforward.
Which is why, when I picked up a Leica SL2 I was hooked. Because, in essence, and in vague theory, it was a form factor I'd been used to since the late 1970s. It's the same basic rationale. Big enough to hold. Robust enough to drop occasionally, onto hard concrete. A wonderful EVF. And even access to older Nikon and Canon manual focus lenses that I happened to have hanging around.
While logically I know I can now make do with the newest and best iPhone (which I've not bothered to upgrade to....) as a camera, I don't head down that path because... I've gotten some ingrained prejudices as what constitutes a worthy professional tool. Now that I'm retired from the shooting business I guess I can choose to shoot with anything I want. But it seems that every time I downsize on cameras or lenses I have a feeling that something is missing. Somehow the experience feels incomplete.
While I don't think of the SL2 as being an exciting camera, nor is it the most technically advanced, and it certainly isn't a budget option, still I find myself feeling more comfortable with it than any of the other cameras. Heavy? Yes. Slow to focus? Sometimes. But it has the personality of a best friend and that counts for a lot more.
I've used the camera for over five years now. Well over 100,000 frames between the two copies that I own. I've been through the menus so many times that I can probably recite each page of the camera menus blindfolded. It's that comfort level that makes the camera a worthwhile companion. Much more than the lens selection or the sheer speed of AF. Because, in the real world that I live in, very few subjects are moving so quickly that my current camera or my focusing skills can't keep up. Sure, if I was shooting fast moving sports I'd choose a different system. Maybe Nikon or Canon. A system with long lenses and fast focusing as a standout feature. But for shooting a portrait in the studio? A scene on the streets? A discarded object that presents itself to me as "Art"? In any of those scenarios even the manual focusing of the ancient Canon TX would probably do just fine.
Your preference of camera, if you are honest with yourself, all boils down to your acceptance, joy with, ease of use, of the camera system's interface. If the camera feels good in your hands you'll have more fun with it. Assuming that across all brands you are able to find the resolution and color you like what your choice really comes down to is how you feel while you are shooting. Whether the menus are logical to you. Whether the noise the shutter makes sounds like music to you instead of a quick rendition of a construction project.
In the end I don't think, for those of us who are still captivated by photography, that our choices even come down to budget anymore. We're all looking for the tool (instrument?) that resonates with us for us. And, obviously, for each of us it will be different. Just as in a marriage, I think it's important to get along, to share values, and to see each other as attractive - even if that is wholly subjective.
Just as my wife is, to me, the Leica of Spouses so my Leica is the B. of cameras. And that works for me.
You want your camera to be like a Ford F150 Pick-up truck.
Sturdy, reliable and dependable. Keeping it for the long term.
Cuz it works...and it's paid for.
Camera choice is as subjective as a man's choice of hat.
Still thinking 24 megapixels is the right target. I'll take more if I have to.
But sometimes I shoot that SL2 camera at the 12 megapixel, Jpeg setting.
Fun to see if you can nail the quality you want at the lower edge of the
performance envelope. Right Ming?
I hate these signs but as someone who worked on the "other side" I loved
not having to workaround people who didn't want to be in a scene. People I didn't have to chase down to get a signed model release...
The SL2-S is a sweet, low light camera. I'll give up some res for a noise free
12,000 ISO. But when I shoot with the SL2-S I'm always wondering if the shot
would be better taken with the 47 megapixel SL2 and then downsampled to 22 megapixels instead. Juries still out. Even after a couple years of joint usage.
some cameras are classics and some become trash over time.
Just use the one you know you should want instead of the one
the influencers think you should have. You'll be happier in the
long run. Just remember to stock up on batteries now that
we're so firmly in the digital age. Right?
