Leica's newest, versatile mirrorless body has some impressive specs, but is it worth the money?
If there's a more polarizing and divisive brand in the camera industry than Leica, I've not found them. Anybody who uses their cameras and lenses religiously is a "fanboy," and anybody who outright rejects their products doesn't understand the nuance of Leica. As is often the case with these things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
I've been to Leica's offices in London and I've tried a number of their cameras and lenses and there is something about them. It's not always as easy to identify as "the rangefinder is fun." Sometimes it's the feel of the camera and the shots it produces. The difficulty only really arises off the back of the cost of their products. The financial gatekeeper does play into the mystique, but it rules a lot of photographers out of ever setting foot in their eco system, myself included. Their cameras and lenses just wouldn't yield enough of a return on my extra investment. If they were cheaper, or I could be looser with how I invest my money on depreciating assets, would I go Leica? Perhaps.
The SL2 has an incredible spec sheet, with strong performance in both video and photo; a versatility not typically seen by most Leica cameras. The images and video samples from the video are stunning, but are they $2,000 or $3,000 better than similarly high spec offerings from Canon, Sony, Nikon, and so on? Before I use the SL2 for a few days, I couldn't say, but it may well be.