Leica SL + 24-90.
I've owned and used a fair number of digital cameras since I first started dabbling with digital photography back in the late 1990s. There were a number that were very good in their day. There were a number of very forgettable ones as well. Talking about digital cameras is like trying to hit an erratic moving target. Tastes change, styles change and things that the general public like to see in cameras change. There are a number of features that hobbyists love which don't move the needle at all for me and there as some aspects of a handful of cameras that I just love. It's hard to put it all into a tidy package of parameters but over time one finds that they have developed an appreciation for certain camera models that is both illogical and strong. The winners are usually not the "spreadsheet" friendly models that tick all the boxes but the outliers that are just capable of making, consistently, very good images. But are also equipped with personality.
Everyone seems to have different uses for cameras and that certainly drives adaptation of some models for specific use cases. One man videography businesses seem overwhelmingly to favor Sony cameras because they have very fast and sticky continuous AF. Some sports dads and sports pro photographers swear by either Canon or Nikon because one or the other of the cameras delivers color they way people like it while also providing above average continuous AF and fast frame rates. Me? I've never used C-AF, don't need it and really don't understand why it is such a popular focus setting. When it comes to video production I am so old school I think we should be using manual focus lenses and focus follow gears to deal with moving subjects. And when it comes to color science well....I think Leica, Fuji and Nikon are the front-runners. It's so subjective though. My choice for not just color but also color discrimination, contrast, micro-contrast, etc. is Leica all the way. But, truth be told, I could use any one of the mentioned brands to make nice photographs for clients --- and I have.
But what is it that makes two particular cameras quite special to me?
I should start out by stating that the two cameras I am most fond of are both from the same camera maker but one is a rangefinder and the other is a big, pro mirrorless. Two completely different ways of making photographs; or at least composing and "seeing" photographs. The cameras are the Leica M 240 rangefinder and the Leica SL. Both have been superseded by newer models but there is something about the hard core industrial design layered into both of these cameras that makes them amazing. At least to me.
I was deep into Leicas, both rangefinder and SLR back in the film days. Loved shooting with both but for different reasons. It's the same now. The M240 is very much a haul it everywhere and use it all the time/street shooting/decisive moment camera while the SL is at home on a tripod, coupled with lights, used on a copy stand and pressed into service for just about anything commercial. Neither one is a low light champ but then neither of them give up anything in terms of brilliant color and great imaging science at "normal" ISOs. (And by that I mean a mixture of color discrimination, perfect contrast and very complex tonality).
While I can use third party lenses on the M camera I only use lenses that are already set up for M series cameras. The reason is that the way to focus these lenses is with the cams built into each lens which match up with an arm in the camera body which moves the rangefinder mechanism to focus. Adapt a non-M lens to the camera and you have the ultimate dumb lens. No cams means no rangefinder focusing. This limits the different lenses you can successfully use with the camera. The three main players at the higher end of the M market are: Leica (of course), Carl Zeiss ZM lenses, and Voigtlander VM lenses. And all three makers do a very good job making a small selection of focal length lenses for these kinds of cameras.
If I had all the money in the world I'd happily cherry pick through the most high performance Leica lenses in the catalog. As it is, given that I don't use the M cameras on a tripod or with flash, I find that the Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses already give me great images without putting a tremendous bite on my net worth. I've limited my selection of M type lenses just to focal lengths that I know will work well within the constraints of the angle of view of the viewfinder window. And the ones that work best within the frame lines supplied by the cameras. For me these are the 28mm, the 35mm, the 50mm and the 75mm options. Going longer means a smaller rectangle in the finder with which to focus and compose. Going wider means having to buy auxiliary finders that sit in the hot shoe and show you, roughly, where the edges of the frame will end up. It's a pain in the butt I'm not interested in entertaining.
When I head out the door to experience the raw pleasures of photography it's generally with one M body and one or two lenses. My favorite combos are the 28 + 50 and the 35 + 75. When I travel I take all four lenses but usually leave two in the hotel and only take along two for the day.
The M camera I've chosen is an old one. It's the M240. It has a fairly modern and very capable 24 megapixel, full frame sensor, a super-rugged and weather resistant body and it's the first M camera I've ever owned that has the ability to delivery live view --- and, by extension, video (which I have yet to try out). The camera is beautifully designed and built, has all the charm of my old film M Leicas and has a battery that last for a long, long time. Usually for at least a full day of shooting for me, which is something like 1200-1500 frames.
The M240 was announced in 2012, became available in the every day marketplace in 2013 and stayed on the market until around 2017. It was a very popular model and it's still possible to buy very good condition samples on the used market. I've now bought two of them. Both from Leica store Miami and both of them had recently been sent back to Leica for complete CLAs and were supplied with warranties from Leica. Both are black paint models. That's important to me because it means they both have brass top and bottom plates which are heavier and feel nicer than the aluminum alloy top plates used on most subsequent models.
On an aesthetic note, when the photographer uses his cameras with real working intention, over time the edges of the camera can wear, the black paint can eventually succumb to the friction of use exposing a beautiful, warm brassing underneath. This brassing is the mark of a well used Leica. Something to aspire to for some. And it's much different, aesthetically, from the black anodized finish over aluminum alloy of most current Leica M cameras. When the newer black cameras wear they show what looks like dull, gray metal. The M240 camera is beautifully designed and, with the addition of a thumb grip, feels natural in one's hands. But it's not a camera "for all seasons." There are no zoom lenses, no auto focus, and no image stabilization (not in the lenses nor in the camera).
For scenarios where lots of useful features and an "all terrain" capability are needed I turn to the Leica SL. I own a newer SL2 which features a nearly 50 megapixel sensor and IBIS but I much prefer to shoot with the SL at it's about as barebones as one could hope for. While incorporating the features I need in order to get just about any job(s) done.
From what I can tell the SL is pretty much indestructible. The body is carved out of all metal allow and features an IP rating of 52 for water and dust intrusion resistance. Takes balls to list an IP rating instead of just chickening out and saying, "splash resistant." The camera does good 4K video, has a high shutter speed of 1/16,000th, a flash sync of 1/250th and, importantly, a sensor stack that's optimized for best results with both Leica M and SL lenses as well as previous generations of R lenses. You really see the results on the edges when you compare M lenses used on an SL with M lenses used on a competing brand. The viewfinder is big and was the first to crest the 4 million dot range. The finder optics are multi-coated optical glass instead of high grade plastic and the camera feels incredibly capable when you pick it up. Couple all of this with a short and straightforward menu and a minimum of buttons and external controls and you have a camera that every minimalist should love.
When I use the Leica SL I feel as though there was a single designer behind the exterior design of the camera who spent time really carrying around and using a camera. Prototypes, works in progress. And by carrying them and using them as a photographer would he or she became better and better at distilling down what the essentials are for a great working tool in hand.
I prefer this camera for most of my work because it feels just right in my hands. In the old days the rationale for owning a Leica had a lot to do with the quality of the lenses. It's not that Leica lens designers were so much more gifted than their competitors at pure optical design as much as it was the much tighter mechanical tolerances used when making and assembling the lenses that seems to have been responsible for much of the perceived quality differences.
Now, while Leica lenses still have marvelous reputations for high quality they are not so far ahead of everyone else because of the widespread adoption of computer control machining and advances in manufacturing across the board. While companies can use these "tools" to make remarkably good lenses they can also use the same tools to make incredibly cheap but tolerably good lenses as well. Compromise is everywhere.
It seems obvious to most observers that Leica often dips into partner and third party companies to fill out their catalog of lenses. The recent 35 and 50mm Summicron Asphericals for the Leica system seem to be almost exact optical copies of Panasonic L mount lenses but have a nicer finish on the bodies of the lenses. Same with the Leica/Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 lenses. If lenses from all the top makers keep getting better and better then there has to be some other reason or reasons to keep embracing Leica mirrorless cameras. There is.
Probably the biggest reason for getting an SL body is that the sensor stack in the camera is optimized to deliver better corner and edge results (and results over the entire frame) when using M mount lenses on the mirrorless body (with lens adapters). This means that committed users of expensive and really excellent (and small) Leica M cameras and lenses can also leverage their lens investment across two different imaging platforms; the M and the L mount. If you really love M lenses but you feel the need for image stabilization you can pair those lenses with either of the two newer mirrorless camera bodies; the SL2 and the SL2-S. But for most uses in good light the SL does a fine job on its own.
In addition to designing the sensors for optimum performance with rangefinder lenses Leica also provides very well crafted profiles in the camera menu for most of the rangefinder lenses across time. Shooting with an older 50mm M Summicron? There's an in-camera profile for that. Same with profiles for many of the excellent R mount lenses that were supplied for Leica's range of film, SLR cameras. While many of these lenses work fine with mirrorless cameras from other makers they work better when used with the customized profiles provided by SL and SL2 bodies.
While hardcore Leica SL and SL2 users may turn up their noses at putting anything non-Leica on the fronts of their cameras I don't have the same brand fixation. Or compulsivity. I'm happy with any lens that can prove its own worth in actual practice. For me these include specialty lenses like the Sigma 70mm Macro Art lens, everyday user lenses like the Sigma iSeries of Contemporary lenses and a small collection of M mount lenses. I do have the Leica 24-90mm zoom lens but it's a hulking beast and I only press it into service if people are paying me to show up and make great content.
As far as primes go, in addition to the ZM, VM and Leica M lenses I use several of the Sigmas all the time. These include the 24mm f3.5 (small, light and sharp!), the 35mm f2.0 (same...well not so small), the wild and weird and small 45mm f2.8 and the 90mm f2.8 lens, which is incredibly nice to shoot with. All of them work seamlessly with the SL bodies and provide great images. Combine these with the really nice color science of the camera files and you can see a difference in rendering with or without actual Leica branded lenses attached.
I had the opportunity this past fall to use the Leica SL and SL2 cameras interchangeably on a two day shooting assignment. If one discounts the file size it's hard to tell the difference between the SL camera launched in 2015 and the SL2 camera launched in 2019. Both are exemplary imaging machines.
Again, when it comes to economics, you could splash out $7,000 for the SL2 or....you could, in 2022 and 2023 invest about $2200 apiece in used SL bodies. Combine an SL with a less expensive zoom like the Panasonic 24-105mm lens and you have the color science I like along with optical performance that is 95 to 98 % of what you might gain by spending $5600 on the big Leica zoom and pairing it with an SL2 body. By way of actual example, I bought a nicely maintained SL body with some warranty left over from a recent CLA service for $2200. I bought the Panasonic zoom as part of a used camera and lens kit which made the brand new cost of the lens = about $600. For less than $3K I got a camera, the operation of which I love, the color and file quality I wanted and need, and a lens that stands up well for most of the projects I've thrown at it.
Finally, and I think this is important to me, there is the concept of a "beater" camera. A camera that's in the same system as your new, top of the line camera, uses the same accessories and lenses but is cheap enough to use in the rain, in the snow, banging around in the desert or bouncing around on the floor board of a four wheel drive vehicle on an off road experience. Even better is the use of a beater system if you have a fear of urban crime. While losing an M11 and a 50mm APO (maybe $15,000 worth of gear - retail) to criminal activity would be really painful losing $2800 worth of used gear is many levels less painful.
I have reasons for owning both cameras. I used one mostly for professional work and the other one almost all the time for personal work. But my situation is a bit different in that I've depended on cameras and lenses for the last 40 years or so in order to earn a living. I can justify two different systems, especially when there can be some crossover between them. I don't expect others who do this as strictly a passion or hobby to have a split need in the same way. But it's good to come to grips with why we do what we do when we do it.
I have been lucky to have spent much of my time working with well funded clients who rarely feared spending money to get what they wanted. I've been able to buy gear with less concern about budgeting than many. But it's still good to know why you prefer one tool over the other for different kinds of applications. I've been doing this for quite a while and, from my point of view today these two cameras are the best I've used in this digital era. We can't compare the apples and Brussel sprouts of film versus digital cameras. They are such different animals. But when it comes to digital I haven't come across anything else that is as much fun to shoot. Or which helps me feel connected with photography in quite the same way.
there is a ton of lenses you can adapt to an SL body. Some of the older Canon FD
lenses have a lot of character. Stop em down to f5.6 or f8.0 and the "character"
converts into convincing competence.
SL combined with the Leica 24-90mm Vario Elmarit. For work.
Example of an SL body and an M series 75mm. Nice.
I added a second M240 to my kit in part to make the kit self sufficient.
By that I mean I have a shooting camera and a backup camera which
are identical. Now that I have camera body redundancy I can travel with that small
system and not worry about the gear. It's a held over habit from
the film days when most cameras did fail from time to time.
We're back.
