Leica SL (Typ 601) - Mirrorless System Camera Without Compromise

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A few weeks back I had an industrial shoot where I needed an extreme wide; rented the Voightlander 15mm V3 (the latest iteration).  Stellar performance on my M, although I don't know how that wide an optic would perform on the SL.

I have the CV15 v1 (it's a LTM or thread mount, that predated the appearance of the M8).  It could be made to work on the M9, but not very well.  I'll try it on the SL for grins, but there is a (rare, expensive, unfortunately) Elmarit-asph R 15 that does wonderfully on the SL.  I've posted several pictures made with it.  It can really open up  a space.  See if you can find one for rental, as it is excellent for your architectural requirements.

 

scott

[IkarusJohn]

I'd hate to think that my reasons for using my M cameras are suddenly wrong because another camera comes along which does a lot of what the M does at least as well if not better.

 

The SL is bigger (too big for some) and heavier.

 

In the core range 28-90 (with a minimum focus distance of 0.7 to 1 metre, and framing inaccuracy), the M has a wonderful form factor, fabulous lenses and a simplicity most users love. I wouldn't put it more strongly than that.

 

For those looking for fatal flaws or unassailable advantages of the M, those justifications don't stand scrutiny. The SL is, in reality, as good with M lenses as the M, and while some may prefer the RF of the M, the EVF in the SL is as good for all practical uses.

 

They are different cameras, and yes the SL actually does everything the M does for all intents and purposes as well if not better. But, it's bigger and it's a different beast. I believe my M Edition 60 and Monochrom play to the strengths of the M system, and the SL everything else.

 

Bashing the SL and challenging the rationale of M users strikes me as fruitless. The alternative is that Leica consciously cripples or dumbs down the SL to protect the M. That would be odd. Long term, the M has a new sister, here to stay. The SL will always be the better choice, in my view, unless you what a compact camera, and then you're limited to 28-90 unless you want to add a clip-on EVF. Another way of looking at this is if most of your photography is 28-90 (and by far, most is), the M cameras are more than enough. There is no point to the SL. For me, as soon as you clip on an EVF, the SL has greater appeal as it does so much more.

 

I love my Ms and I don't see also using my SL as cheating on them, nor does it invalidate my reasons for getting into Ms in the first place. They're different.

[Peter H]

You misunderstand me again John. For clarity, I'm not bashing the SL. It is clearly a fine camera which differs in many ways from the M, and not yet being an SL user I'm in no position to declare one better than the other even if I wanted to, which I don't.

What interests me is something else, which is simply whether the things which differentiate the SL from the M are more significant than many M users previously realised. Of course I include myself in this.

I asked the question not to score a point but to hear the answers, which I'm finding interesting.

[jonoslack]

What interests me is something else, which is simply whether the things which differentiate the SL from the M are more significant than many M users previously realised. Of course I include myself in this.

 

Well, that's an interesting point/question (at least, it interests me!).

Personally, (and 6 months in from first using the SL) I'd say the following:

 

1. I don't believe that IQ differences between the M and the SL are relevant (except that the high ISO is better on the SL)

2. Focusing with the SL is quite different . . but at least as efficient as a rangefinder (probably more efficient)

3. In many situations an M is a much better way to interact with your subject. 

4. I don't think I'll ever use the EVF on my M again!

 

But the SL isn't a substitute for the M . . It's a magnificent substitute for a dSLR kit - 

[scott kirkpatrick]

 

4. I don't think I'll ever use the EVF on my M again!

For the VF2, I completely agree, but...

 

If the M[360] next year comes with an EVF of the same quality as the SL's, and maybe a S/SL style joystick, what will you do then?

 

scott

[Mike Woods]

For the VF2, I completely agree, but...

 

If the M[360] next year comes with an EVF of the same quality as the SL's, and maybe a S/SL style joystick, what will you do then?

 

scott

Where do I sign?

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For the VF2, I completely agree, but...

 

If the M[360] next year comes with an EVF of the same quality as the SL's, and maybe a S/SL style joystick, what will you do then?

 

scott

Who knows what else such a camera might have?

But something like a M240 plus an EVF of the SL's quality would not persuade me to change from my M240 and SL complementary system. The new M would have to have something else.

[IkarusJohn]

You misunderstand me again John. For clarity, I'm not bashing the SL. It is clearly a fine camera which differs in many ways from the M, and not yet being an SL user I'm in no position to declare one better than the other even if I wanted to, which I don't.

 

What interests me is something else, which is simply whether the things which differentiate the SL from the M are more significant than many M users previously realised. Of course I include myself in this.

 

I asked the question not to score a point but to hear the answers, which I'm finding interesting.

 

Gosh, you mean I misunderstood you more than once?  I'm crushed! It has been said that I am learning English as a second language ...

 

The things which differentiate the SL from the M have always been very significant, depending on which M you use ... and yet the SL and M(240) have a lot more in common than any other M.  What you did raise in both your post here and in the M forum is the "virtue" of the M camera and that the reasons people bought the M might not be valid as they seem now to have abandoned the M for the SL. Am I overstating your earlier post?

 

Speaking personally, the M(240) doesn't encapsulate the virtues of the M you speak of for well canvassed reasons. The M cameras I have and the SL have completely different strengths (except that the SL really can do everything my M cameras can do, other than take film, better than the Ms can). 

 

With M lenses on it, the SL isn't actually that much bigger and heavier than my Ms, and it is better balanced than the M bodies with my larger lenses (21 & 75 Summiluxes and Noctilux being cases in point). Then again, an M with a 90 or 28 Summicron, 28, 35 or 50 Summilux is the essence of compact simplicity, with no loss of image quality, and no annoying complex menu options and other electronic frippery. 

 

Another way of answering the question I think you're asking, or maybe making a related point you haven't raised, but which is tangential and of interest to me, is at the M fills a need for those (myself included) sick of or just not interested in huge and complex dSLR cameras. But, the M came with limitations that the M(240) didn't really fix. The SL fills those limitations way better than the M(240) did. The fact that a better option came along after the M(240) does not challenge the validity of all the strengths of the M system, or the reasons people bought the M(240) at that time. That happens all the time, doesn't it?

 

For some, the SL might cause an existential crisis over the validity of buying the M(240); with out thinking too hard about what that camera did to the M system, but that is another question. I didn't buy an M(240) for all the reasons I have bought the SL. The reasons I bought my M cameras remain the same.

 

There is one further issue and that is that Leica has maintained the same approach with the SL that it has with the M - considerable care has gone into the format of the SL (body design, menu structure and how the whole camera works) which on its own distinguishes the camera in a very Leica way from the Sony, Canon & Nikon alternatives. That approach alone is enough to distinguish the SL from the others. 

 

Cheers

John

[Cliff S]

Having the SL and having had the M240, the issues of having a fully calibrated RF and the focus distrust associated with it makes the SL a much more confident solution with M lenses than the M240. I never chimp anymore as I know I'm tack. The M never gave me peace of mind across my range of lenses.

[ramarren]

I have the CV15 v1 (it's a LTM or thread mount, that predated the appearance of the M8).  It could be made to work on the M9, but not very well.  I'll try it on the SL for grins, but there is a (rare, expensive, unfortunately) Elmarit-asph R 15 that does wonderfully on the SL.  I've posted several pictures made with it.  It can really open up  a space.  See if you can find one for rental, as it is excellent for your architectural requirements.

 

I had the CV 15mm v1 too, about the same time that I had a Contax G2 and the Zeiss Hologon 16mm f/8 T*. The little Heliar was handier and more fun to shoot with on a Leica CL or M6 than the Hologon was on the G2, but there was absolutely not contest when it came to imaging quality—the Hologon beat it hands down in every aspect. The poor performance of the CV 15mm, particularly after later having a Hasselblad 903SWC, never inspired me to try the later versions after moving to a digital Leica. 

 

The SL and the excellent performance of the Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8 v1 in my "SWC emulation" mode inspired me to look at even shorter focal lengths once more. The Super-Elmarit-R 15mm f/2.8 remains too pricey for my pay grade, but I found a very very clean example of the Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5 going begging at a very reasonable price (still not cheap, but within my accessible budget). This is, of course, a Zeiss Distagon 15mm f/3.5 T* in Leica R mount, supposedly with some custom tuning to coatings and filters that meet Leica's requirements. It's just arrived this morning, I'm looking forward to talking my walk with it Saturday morning where I'll experiment with it in both full frame and "SWC emulation" modes. It cost me just a little more than a new CV 15mm v3 would have. 

 

I don't expect to be disappointed... The brief snap or two I made with it just to quick-test it after receiving the package produced images that look fantastic on my 27" display.

[ramarren]

For the VF2, I completely agree, but...

 

If the M[360] next year comes with an EVF of the same quality as the SL's, and maybe a S/SL style joystick, what will you do then?

 

Speaking for me personally, nothing. I'm still as delighted as I ever have been with the M-P typ 240; I use it almost exclusively with 35, 50, and 75 mm M-Mount lenses now, and it fulfills its place as complement to my main camera (now the SL; prior the Olympus E-M1) very very well. 

[AlanJW]

For the VF2, I completely agree, but...

 

If the M[360] next year comes with an EVF of the same quality as the SL's, and maybe a S/SL style joystick, what will you do then?

 

scott

With a M(240) in hand and a SL on order, my answer is "probably buy it" but I am really not sure.   It depends on how I think the SL handles with my existing M lenses and how the new "M" works.  I will likely be shot here for this, but an M mount camera with a built in EVF (not clear what you meant by "comes with an EVF") would be a no brainer, while a clip-on EVF, even with SL quality, would be a question mark.  I fully understand the pluses of the OVF that lets you see around the frame (at least for some lenses) but I would happily buy a built in EVF, manual focus M mount camera nevertheless because for the way I shoot the trade-offs work in favor of the EVF.   My ideal would be an M that is like the SL, sans hump(s) and sans autofocus.  If you don't think such a camera could be called an M, call it a SM or MS or QM or whatever.  I'll buy it.

 

p.s. Jono is probably testing it now.

[IkarusJohn]

With a M(240) on hand and a SL on order, my answer is "probably buy it" but I am really not sure.   It depends on how I think the SL handles with my existing M lenses.  I will likely be shot here for this, but a M mount camera with a built in EVF (not clear what you meant by "comes with an EVF") would be a no brainer, while a clip-on EVF, even with SL quality, would be a question mark.  I fully understand the pluses of the OVF that lets you see around the frame (at least for some lenses) but I would happily buy a built in EVF, manual focus M mount nevertheless because for the way I shoot the trade-offs work in favor of the EVF.   My ideal would be an M that is like the SL, sans hump(s) and sans autofocus.  If you don't think such a camera could be called an M, call it a SM or MS or QM or whatever.  I'll buy it.

 

That does rather challenge at least part of the issues raised by Peter - if you do away with the OVF in favour of the SL's internal EVF, what is the M camera?  A smaller, lighter non-AF SL?

 

You can see why I stopped at the M60 ...

[ramarren]

That does rather challenge at least part of the issues raised by Peter - if you do away with the OVF in favour of the SL's internal EVF, what is the M camera?  A smaller, lighter non-AF SL?

 

You can see why I stopped at the M60 ...

 

I wanted an M Edition 60. If it had been available as a standard production, body-only purchase, I'd have bought one in lieu of the M-P ... if I'd known the SL was coming. There's still a second-hand body available, and I'm occasionally tempted, but it's just too expensive after having put my all in for the SL kit. And the M-P is really just right anyway. 

 

If I still had the M9 when I bought the SL, and its sensor bellied-up like it did last January, I'd have no troubles at all trading up for an M typ 262. The SL does all the other things that Live View and the EVF on the M-P enables, and does them in a manner more to my liking. 

[AlanJW]

That does rather challenge at least part of the issues raised by Peter - if you do away with the OVF in favour of the SL's internal EVF, what is the M camera?  A smaller, lighter non-AF SL?

 

You can see why I stopped at the M60 ...

Yes, a smaller lighter manual focus SL.  It would be more elegant digital solution than the M240, so I'd buy it.  This does not mean I think the M(240) is unworkable, just that cameras need to evolve as technologies evolve.   BTW, if you are using M lenses on the SL, how can you say you stopped at the M60?

[jonoslack]

For the VF2, I completely agree, but...

 

If the M[360] next year comes with an EVF of the same quality as the SL's, and maybe a S/SL style joystick, what will you do then?

 

scott

Hi Scott

I don't use the zoom magnification on the SL (well, very rarely) because by the time I've zoomed out again to check the composition . . . . the focus has changed. 

 

I'm right up for an M(360) next year, as long as it shows me some improvements, but I don't think It will be a substitute for the SL, any more than the SL is a substitute for the M

[jonoslack]

With a M(240) in hand and a SL on order, my answer is "probably buy it" but I am really not sure.   It depends on how I think the SL handles with my existing M lenses and how the new "M" works.  I will likely be shot here for this, but an M mount camera with a built in EVF (not clear what you meant by "comes with an EVF") would be a no brainer, while a clip-on EVF, even with SL quality, would be a question mark.  I fully understand the pluses of the OVF that lets you see around the frame (at least for some lenses) but I would happily buy a built in EVF, manual focus M mount camera nevertheless because for the way I shoot the trade-offs work in favor of the EVF.   My ideal would be an M that is like the SL, sans hump(s) and sans autofocus.  If you don't think such a camera could be called an M, call it a SM or MS or QM or whatever.  I'll buy it.

 

 

An M mount camera with a built in EVF . . . . . is what the SL is - okay, you need an adapter, but it's neat / well made and fully functional, so that M lenses on the SL are just as well provided for as on an M.

It weighs a bit more (but not that much). If you fit M lenses there is no Autofocus - the hump is aesthetic, and you'll soon get used to it. . . . So the SL is your camera (just don't buy the AF lens(s))

[IkarusJohn]

BTW, if you are using M lenses on the SL, how can you say you stopped at the M60?

 

No more M cameras for me ...  I really can't see the point.

 

The 24MP sensor on the M60 is fine, and the 18MP on the Monochrom plenty.  What more could I want?  In terms of technological advances, more, better options etc, that is the realm of the SL.  The M is all about the OVF, and for me any additions to that detract from the purity of that camera.  The OVF means (for me) that the M is at its best 28-90.  Outside that range, I'll use the SL in preference.

 

The SL isn't an M camera, though it takes M lenses - it also takes R, S, T and its own AF SL lenses.  With adapters, I'm sure it will also take Canon, Nikon and Sony mount lenses as well. 

[thighslapper]

Peter - you really are like a dog with a bone over all this ....... 

 

As far as I am concerned an SL with 28-90 and an M (any flavour) plus a parcel of M and R lenses provides me with a unified system and toolkit that covers all situations and almost all photographic eventualities. 

 

The M is not perfect alone, and neither is the SL ....... but they make a good complementary pair ...... and would allow me to jettison a whole cupboard full of gear (Leica and other) kept 'just in case' if I wasn't such an inveterate hoarder. 

 

Using the M is a pleasure ..... and so is the SL ....... so now I have a couple of very attractive mistresses to divert me instead of just the one ...... who's complaining ? 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[IkarusJohn]

You're cheating on the M, and she is getting jealous.