In an absolutely amazing turn of events I bought only one camera in 2024. While the year is not over yet I don't see any more pending camera purchases on the horizon. Not a one. Seems that after years of experimenting I finally found a mix of cameras that work well for me and which have slowed down or stopped my somewhat irrational desire to acquire more. Hopefully I will no longer be known as the photographer who changes camera systems "more often than most people change underwear...." Four years and counting with the same brand...
The camera I did buy was the Leica SL2-S. I bought it for two reasons. I mean two other reasons besides the primary one which was that I always just wanted one. But the two practical reasons are: 1. the camera's very good noise performance when used at high ISO settings and, 2. because it makes the perfect back-up camera (same body, same controls, the same menus, etc.) for the original SL2 --- or vice versa. Another reason, the importance of which ebbs and flows depending on the use case, is the smaller file size when shooting raw compared to the higher resolution SL2. Much easier to deal with for storage, processing, speed, etc. All of these reasons are based on actual use cases. Situations in which I found myself wishing for a good combination of really good image stabilization, great low light performance and manageable file sizes. All while fitting well into an existing system base.
I have a couple of the older, original SL cameras and I love them to death. Especially if I can shoot them under 3200 ISO, with shutter speeds above 1/125th (no I.S.) and mostly in daylight. The SLs are workhorse cameras while the SL2-S provides more performance and is a more evolved camera.
Prior to the introduction of the SL3 I would have positioned the SL2-S as the best of all the SLx cameras. While the SL2 has nearly double the resolution it comes at the price of more noise. Not a lot more and certainly not much more if you intended to downsize your raw files, but more noise nonetheless. In a direct comparison between the SL2 and the SL2-S I find the later camera, which is a bit heavier, to feel more solid and bulletproof than the former. Both the SL2 and the SL2-S have image stabilization which outmatches that found in the newer SL3 and all three are rated to IP54 standards for dust and moisture resistance.
When I first embarked on purchasing a second generation mirrorless camera from Leica I had a choice between the SL2-S and the SL2. At the time I felt certain that the extra resolution of the SL2 (47.5 mp) would come in handy for the commercial photography assignments I routinely handled. The lower resolution of the SL2-S felt as though it was positioned more like part of a wide ranging pack of similar cameras from other makers.
Over the four years that I've owned the SL2 the one thing I found myself wishing for more than anything else would be a lower resolution raw setting. It would be great to shoot that camera in a full frame, raw mode but at half the resolution. Especially for portraits which tend not to need higher and higher resolutions.
If you have not been paying attention I have to tell you that the middle generation of Leica SL cameras (the SL2 and SL2-S) have become much more affordable in the second half of 2024. We can thank all the buyers of the new SL3 camera for that. Prices for minty, used SL2 cameras have dropped down under $3,000 while the SL2-S has recently been offered in a "certified, pre-owned" condition for around the same price. And, being Leica certified those cameras frequently come with a two year factory warranty.
I added a certified, pre-owned SL2-S a couple of months back for less than $3,000. When new these cameras still sell for around $5100. Seemed like a bargain to me and more so now that I've had the opportunity to put mine through its paces to see what it can do.
Here's what I like about the camera over the original, high res SL2: The camera is slightly heavier which I think is the result of some internal changes between the two models. I can only conjecture but I think the SL2-S has a reconfigured shutter system that's slightly quieter. And which seems to operate with lower frequency noise. Which makes the system aesthetically nicer from an audible point of view. The increase in weight in a body that's exactly the same in all dimensions also seems to speak to changes which give faster processing speeds given that it doesn't have the same restrictions on power use for high def video settings. The SL2 video drops down from 10 bit to 8 bit when the battery power drops below half. And it seems to process files slower as the power from the battery drops below 25%. The SL2 really likes a juicy and fully charged battery or other power source to operate at its highest capability. The SL2-S seems to have improved on all of these measures. Better operability.
Both cameras seem more responsive when paired with fully charged SCL-6 batteries. Those are the newest version of the batteries that can be used in most current Leicas, including the whole SL series and the latest Q2 and Q3 camera models. The extra capacity in the batteries seems to stabilize both cameras a bit more.
In my personal experiences, and this is very subjective (everyone's noise tolerance is different), the major benefit of the BSI sensor in the SL2-S is in the way it handles noise as the ISOs go up. When I compare all three of the SL variants I own I find that the SL and the SL2 are equal and good at settings up to 1600. At 3200 the SL2 is about a half stop to a stop better than the older SL. But the SL2-S is performing at 12,600 ISO about as well as the SL2 does at 3200. That's a two stop improvement and it can make a difference in many available light situations. The color from the SL2-S seems richer than that of the SL2. Of the three camera models I prefer the look of the SL2-S the best, from raws or from out of the camera Jpegs. My second place favorite for color and tonality are the SL cameras and the SL2 brings up last place in the race. All the files can be tweaked but it's a process. I find the SL2 files to be flatter and "thinner." Not deal-killer bad. Just not as spectacular.
When it comes to noise performance Adobe is currently hard at work changing the paradigm and somewhat leveling the playing field among the cameras. Their A.I. DeNoise feature in Lightroom is quite powerful and brings new life to the SL2 and the SL cameras where noise is concerned. The only downside is that the feature currently only works with raw files. So Jpeg shooters still need to pay attention to which camera they select when the light levels start dropping.
All three of these cameras are big, heavy and solid. The quality you get from any modern camera is so much influenced by what kinds of lenses you hang on the front of it and so you can, for the most part, interchange cameras from similar groups and get similar, great results. Put a killer lens on a Leica, Sony or Nikon top of line camera and you'll get really great files. So it's not as compelling to buy one brand over the other unless there are lenses proprietary to one mount that spank the competition. Sigma seems to be the spoiler here in that they are making lenses across brands that are world class. I use a lot of them-- happily. And the ones I use are available for both the Sony and Nikon cameras as well. So, from an optical point of view, the performance of the files, the differences boil down to the color science that each company is using. And those are personal, subjective choices for end users.
In choosing the Leicas and specifically the SL2-S for my own use I first looked at the human/machine interface is represented by the physical camera controls and the menus. For the way my brain is wired the Leicas were my first choice. Then I looked at the way I shoot images and realized that much of the "improvements" in other brands (fast focus, fast frame rates, infinite customizability) were less important to me than a rugged and resilient build quality and access to Leica SL lenses, and also the ability to use M lenses in a camera with a thinner AA filter which increases the performance of M series wide angle lenses. And M lens profiles applicable in camera.
There is no magic bullet that makes one camera brand objectively superior to any other. It's the confluence of features and the mindset of the user that pushes us to prefer one solution over another. Over the course of my 40+ year career in photography I have used every sort of camera imaginable and many different brands. I can make competent images with just about anything. So, at a certain point it all boils down to personal preferences. To date the SL2-S, with it's "just right" sensor and rock solid build is a camera which, especially at the current prices, really aligns with the parameters I like and want in a camera. The original SL2 had me at the EVF and the precision eyepiece with which to view it. The SL2-S matched that and then added better noise reduction and more manageable file size to the mix. It was an easy sell.
It's an odd year for me to not have purchased more cameras. It's probably largely due to my decision to create a gradual "glide path" to retirement. I think most freelance photographers, and even most small business owners don't need to be binary about retiring. We can choose to throttle back and weed out the shitty jobs from the pleasant jobs. And that's more fun. And manageable.
Part of refusing to take all jobs and instead fine-tuning the selection process also means that one doesn't need to be loaded up with a wide range of gear that gives one the feeling of assurance that you'll be ready to handle anything that comes down the road. If a job now requires different or more lights than I currently own, or different camera capabilities I now turn the job down instead of tweaking the inventory. Now I might not be able to light a 10,000 square foot lab with the lights I own but I no longer need to accept jobs which involve lighting a 10,000 square foot lab.
I have done a couple projects this year and last where I didn't want to deal with providing and setting up tons of lighting gear. But that's what was needed. I partnered with a cinema lighting company. They have trucks filled with all manner of movie lighting gear (mostly now LEDs...), big stands, scrims, nets, diffusion panels up to 12x12 fee, sandbags, cables and more. For a set fee you can "rent" a truck, an operator and an assistant by the day. They'll come into your location and set up whatever lighting design you specify. Work with the best people on a big enough job and "your crew" can come in the day before, pre-light, and be ready for you to make final fine-tuning changes on the shooting day. You walk in with a small camera bag and maybe a tripod and shoot the job. When the job is over you head out for drinks with the happy client while the crew takes down all the lighting gear, loads it into their truck and we're all done. All that's left is writing the check for their services. Had I known how much more fun it is to work this way I would have been doing it for years. Better late than never....
Finding the camera you enjoy working with is a process that depends on more than just reading spec sheets. If you are going to spend days, months or even years with a camera in your hand you have to like the way it feels and the way it operates. You need to work well with the way it provides information and access to features. These are all subjective things. Like picking a spouse. Kind of. Even just not liking the way the menus work might mean a messy divorce down the road --- and generally after much unhappy friction. Find a camera that speaks to you and you might find your overall enjoyment of our craft rises.
Just some stuff to think about. I've actually gotten rid of perfectly good cameras because I just couldn't stand the way the shutter sounded. It all makes a difference. It all depends on where your sensitivities lie. Life is too short to use tools that don't fit you.
