Leica SL a real camera for the pro.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

.But I'm curious as to whether any M users have bought the SL solely for use with their M lenses.  

 

dunk

Pretty well. | haven't bought the SL lens and l didn't have an R lens to start with, though l have now bought the 80-200R. I've used mainly M lenses to date, very happily. I've used both focus peaking and magnification, but I'm using them less and less. The body is obviously heavier and bigger than the M, but it was the SL lens l found intimidating, not the body. l have added a Spider Pro hand strap which increases the usability a lot.

 

Today l used the R zoom for the first time, shooting a music and dance group for small (fast moving) children. They were too fast to use any focus aids, but l still found the EVF manual focusing quite easy. It would be good to test AF in the same situation, though.

 

l may not be the candidate you are looking for though, as my intention is to use the SL with longer lenses. l may end up with the 90-280SL.

[Paulus]

This is fundamentally incorrect.

 

My understanding is that many excellent photographers are left eye shooters; I believe Tina Manley has said she is a left eye shooter regardless of camera, for example. I'm a right eye shooter, regardless of camera. 

 

When I have put a camera to my left eye, the camera never turned around and punched me in the right eye either. 

I don't know if it's correct or incorrect. The thing is, that Puts wrote about it, as did others, maybe on the contrary. I like using two different eyes on two different camera's. I do not think I made better photo's right or left, but sure like the viewfinder's right eye approach. My nose doesn't get squezed and the damp of my breath can escape more easily.

 

It's not like playing music:

 

 

http://musicianbrain.gottfriedschlaug.org/papers/Schlaug_Music_Child_Brain_NYAS2005.pdf

[ramarren]

I don't know if it's correct or incorrect. The thing is, that Puts wrote about it, as did others, maybe on the contrary. I like using two different eyes on two different camera's. I do not think I made better photo's right or left, but sure like the viewfinder's right eye approach. My nose doesn't get squezed and the damp of my breath can escape more easily.

 

I usually keep both eyes open and working. My right eye has always had better acuity then my left, which is why I've always been right-eye dominant and a right-eye shooter. Lately, though, I have developed a condition where my right eye can become blurry for a day or two at a time, so I've been using my left eye more.

 

I've never crushed my nose into the camera. Since I have worn glasses since I was six years old, I've always held my eye to a viewfinder without smashing the camera into my face. 

 

Whatever works. That is incorrect is that SLRs always require one to use the left eye and RF always require one to use the right eye. That's silly, since there are plenty of people who use the "other" eye. What is true is that most cameras are right-handed designs, but eye dominance is not linked to handed-ness as far as I'm aware. 

[Peter H]

I am curious to discover what you think the SL cannot do that the M can do (aside from "be a rangefinder camera with an optical viewfinder", that is...  ). 

 

I can't think of anything I can do with the M that I cannot do with the SL. I can think of several things I can do with the SL that I can't do with the M right off the bat (capture 11 fps, drive the AF in a lens from either the SL or T series, capture 4K video, make a 30 minute long time exposure, etc). I can't think of anything the M can do that the SL cannot with the exception, as before, of "be a rangefinder camera with an optical viewfinder". 

 

That's because you're still looking at it from the perspective of the features of the camera that matter to you, or that you can imagine being important to you in certain circumstances, or the operations that the technology within the camera can perform.

 

You discount "being a rangefinder camera with an optical viewfinder" as though those things don't count for anything, because to you, those things can easily be replicated in the SL.  That is fine, but counts for nothing to someone who sees the world differently, or uses their camera in a very different way. By the same token you ignore the size difference because in your terms perhaps it is so marginal that it doesn't matter, or is trivial. Again, this is taking your personal perspective as a measure rather than as a phenomenon.

 

It can't be a RF camera with an optical viewfinder, as you say. It cannot be smaller than it is. If these are not little details but an integral part of your photography, as they may well be to some people, if they are exactly what they are looking for in a camera, then the SL can't do them, and it's no use arguing that these things don't matter as much as the things that matter to you in a camera. Because there's nothing that you can't do with an SL that an M could do is simply a reflection of your own priorities, and perceptions too, clearly.

 

Bringing value-judgements into play, judging the validity of other people's preferences and needs and ways of using a camera, do not answer the point.

 

If I were to (vainly) try to argue that fast and accurate AF has no value at all, it would be easy for you to refute it by giving examples of where it is not only useful but necessary. And even if those examples are drawn from a branch of photography that holds no interest for me, you would insist that they are still valid reasons why AF is not a trivial thing without photographic value. I think people who value the unique qualities of the M cameras deserve the same degree of reason and respect for their personal requirements.

 

If I want a camera that will invisibly sit in my jacket pocket until I want to use it, that will put nothing but clear glass between me and the subject I'm concentrating on, that will not in any way that matters to me, however trivial to you, alter what I am seeing as I observe the subject that I'm involving myself with, yet will produce photos with the lenses I have learned to work with over many years to exactly the standard and nature that I want, the SL will not be able to do that.

[Steve Spencer]

Not quite as common as bag threads, but just a sampling of discussions to the contrary....

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/156416-left-or-right-eyed-what-are-you/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/197140-right-eye-or-left-with-the-m/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/130815-left-eye-right-eye/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/191990-left-eye-shooting/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/11669-left-or-right-eye/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/78971-left-eye-better-than-right-eye/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/40986-left-or-right-eyed-m-photography/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/22568-whos-happiest-left-or-right-eyed-leica-m8-shooters/

 

Jeff

 

As I described about whether you use your left or your right eye you will use your whole brain. That is true even if you have had surgery that cuts the connections between the halves of your brain and is even more true for people that have intact connections between the left and right side of their brain. It simply is not the way the brain's physiology works that what is presented to the right eye goes to the left brain. It goes to both sides.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I am curious to discover what you think the SL cannot do that the M can do (aside from "be a rangefinder camera with an optical viewfinder", that is...  ). 

 

I can't think of anything I can do with the M that I cannot do with the SL. I can think of several things I can do with the SL that I can't do with the M right off the bat (capture 11 fps, drive the AF in a lens from either the SL or T series, capture 4K video, make a 30 minute long time exposure, etc). I can't think of anything the M can do that the SL cannot with the exception, as before, of "be a rangefinder camera with an optical viewfinder". 

 

The RF allows you to see subjects outside the frame so you can judge their movement into the frame. The RF viewfinder shows the entire scene in focus compared to the "selected aperture" view of a mirrorless viewfinder. The EVF on the M articulates, which is better for some purposes (one that matters to me often). The M is smaller and less conspicuous. You can see most of the settings on an M with the camera turned off. I'm sure there are others.

 

Gordon

[Paulus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 What is true is that most cameras are right-handed designs, but eye dominance is not linked to handed-ness as far as I'm aware. 

 Btw are there left hand cameras at all?

[jaapv]

Leica did make a left hand release in the past.

[ramarren]

The RF allows you to see subjects outside the frame so you can judge their movement into the frame. The RF viewfinder shows the entire scene in focus compared to the "selected aperture" view of a mirrorless viewfinder. The EVF on the M articulates, which is better for some purposes (one that matters to me often). The M is smaller and less conspicuous. You can see most of the settings on an M with the camera turned off. I'm sure there are others.

 

Gordon

 

Hmm.  I can always see subjects outside of the frame, with any camera, by opening my other eye. I've never found this argument for the superiority of a rangefinder to have any substance for me. 

 

The M's articulated EVF is a nice thing; I use it myself, particularly when using a copy stand. 

 

 

But you, like Peter H, are concentrating on what the camera "is" rather than "what it can do" when you talk about 'smaller and less conspicuous' and 'can see the controls with the camera off'. My apologies, I didn't know I was supposed to fixate on the camera itself rather than on the photographs I can make with it. The SL cannot "be" an M, just like an M cannot "be" an SL. They are different things.   

 

If that's the focus of your dislike for the SL, well, dislike it and enjoy your M. No one is forcing you to like the SL or buy one. Leica is still selling the M, and is happy for your delight in that line of their products. 

[Peter H]

Hmm.  I can always see subjects outside of the frame, with any camera, by opening my other eye. I've never found this argument for the superiority of a rangefinder to have any substance for me. 

 

The M's articulated EVF is a nice thing; I use it myself, particularly when using a copy stand. 

 

 

But you, like Peter H, are concentrating on what the camera "is" rather than "what it can do" when you talk about 'smaller and less conspicuous' and 'can see the controls with the camera off'. My apologies, I didn't know I was supposed to fixate on the camera itself rather than on the photographs I can make with it. The SL cannot "be" an M, just like an M cannot "be" an SL. They are different things.   

 

If that's the focus of your dislike for the SL, well, dislike it and enjoy your M. No one is forcing you to like the SL or buy one. Leica is still selling the M, and is happy for your delight in that line of their products. 

 

 

I don't dislike the SL at all. I admire it and I think it's an achievement for Leica to have revitalised their presence in this important sector of the market. And the things that it can do that the M can't, it does exceedingly well by all accounts. And I'd like one and may well buy one. But that is irrelevant to what I'm saying about it.

 

I'm talking about the fact that you're confusing things by making some claims for it that can't be substantiated. You're also imputing to me things that I have not said or implied, but which you have mistakenly inferred.

 

I'm convinced it's a fine camera, highly versatile and hugely accomplished in many ways, but like every camera ever made, there are some things it can't do which others can, and that is not the same as simply not being another camera in the way you suggest. That would just be playing with words.

 

The fact is there are some, admittedly not a large number, but some applications for which the M is better suited for some people. I don't know why you're having such a hard time accepting that. 

[ramarren]

That's because you're still looking at it from the perspective of the features of the camera that matter to you, or that you can imagine being important to you in certain circumstances, or the operations that the technology within the camera can perform.

 

You discount "being a rangefinder camera with an optical viewfinder" as though those things don't count for anything, because to you, those things can easily be replicated in the SL.  That is fine, but counts for nothing to someone who sees the world differently, or uses their camera in a very different way. By the same token you ignore the size difference because in your terms perhaps it is so marginal that it doesn't matter, or is trivial. Again, this is taking your personal perspective as a measure rather than as a phenomenon.

 

It can't be a RF camera with an optical viewfinder, as you say. It cannot be smaller than it is. If these are not little details but an integral part of your photography, as they may well be to some people, if they are exactly what they are looking for in a camera, then the SL can't do them, and it's no use arguing that these things don't matter as much as the things that matter to you in a camera. Because there's nothing that you can't do with an SL that an M could do is simply a reflection of your own priorities, and perceptions too, clearly.

 

Bringing value-judgements into play, judging the validity of other people's preferences and needs and ways of using a camera, do not answer the point.

 

If I were to (vainly) try to argue that fast and accurate AF has no value at all, it would be easy for you to refute it by giving examples of where it is not only useful but necessary. And even if those examples are drawn from a branch of photography that holds no interest for me, you would insist that they are still valid reasons why AF is not a trivial thing without photographic value. I think people who value the unique qualities of the M cameras deserve the same degree of reason and respect for their personal requirements.

 

If I want a camera that will invisibly sit in my jacket pocket until I want to use it, that will put nothing but clear glass between me and the subject I'm concentrating on, that will not in any way that matters to me, however trivial to you, alter what I am seeing as I observe the subject that I'm involving myself with, yet will produce photos with the lenses I have learned to work with over many years to exactly the standard and nature that I want, the SL will not be able to do that.

 

I was looking at the question from the point of view of what the camera could do. I buy a camera to make photographs. What distinguishes one camera from another, primarily, is what kinds of photographs I can make with them, not whether the camera is of a particular type. 

 

As I just responded to Gordon, "you are concentrating on what the camera "is" rather than "what it can do". I discount "being a rangefinder with an optical viewfinder" because it is a matter of the camera's being, not what the camera can do. 

 

I'm not making any evaluation of the "validity of other people's preferences". I wanted to know what sorts of things you thought the M could do that the SL cannot. I see from your discussion that the primary thing the M can do that the SL cannot is be an M. 

 

At which point, there's nothing further to discuss. 

[Peter H]

I was looking at the question from the point of view of what the camera could do. I buy a camera to make photographs. What distinguishes one camera from another, primarily, is what kinds of photographs I can make with them, not whether the camera is of a particular type. 

 

As I just responded to Gordon, "you are concentrating on what the camera "is" rather than "what it can do". I discount "being a rangefinder with an optical viewfinder" because it is a matter of the camera's being, not what the camera can do. 

 

I'm not making any evaluation of the "validity of other people's preferences". I wanted to know what sorts of things you thought the M could do that the SL cannot. I see from your discussion that the primary thing the M can do that the SL cannot is be an M. 

 

At which point, there's nothing further to discuss. 

 

You are quite mistaken.

 

It is all to do with the photographs that the cameras can help me to take.

 

Are you deliberately misunderstanding this?

[ramarren]

I don't dislike the SL at all. I admire it and I think it's an achievement for Leica to have revitalised their presence in this important sector of the market. And the things that it can do that the M can't, it does exceedingly well by all accounts. And I'd like one and may well buy one. But that is irrelevant to what I'm saying about it.

 

I'm talking about the fact that you're confusing things by making some claims for it that can't be substantiated. 

 

I'm convinced it's a fine camera, highly versatile and hugely accomplished in many ways, but like every camera ever made, there are some things it can't do which others can, and that is not the same as simply not being another camera in the way you suggest. That would just be playing with words.

 

The fact is there are some, admittedly not a large number, but some applications for which the M is better suited for some people. I don't know why you're having such a hard time accepting that. 

 

I've made no claims for what the SL can do that are not substantiated by its instruction manual or by using one for five minutes. Which of my "claims for what the SL can do" do you think are unsubstantiated? 

 

Really, Peter, you've become very emotional about this. Take a deep breath. 

 

I agree that the M and the SL are two different cameras, and that there are some things I prefer to use the M to make photographs of because it's more suitable, more comfortable, easier, etc. However, there's nothing that the M "can do" that the SL cannot, and there are a few things that the SL can do that the M cannot, as I mentioned in my first post on this subject. 

[ramarren]

 Btw are there left hand cameras at all?

 

Exaktas were lefty cameras with controls and shutter release on the left side, as were Beseler Topcons IIRC. The Rollei 35 is an semi-lefty (left handed wind, right handed shutter). I believe the half-frame Konica Samurai was a left-handed design. I'm sure there are some others. 

 

 

Leica did make a left hand release in the past.

 

That's interesting. Are there any pictures of it? I've never seen one. 

[jaapv]

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/124412-left-hand-release/?p=1359512

[ramarren]

Very interesting! Not what I was expecting at all. Thanks Jaap. 

[jaapv]

And very expensive. 1500-2000 Euro.

[Jeff S]

 

Not quite as common as bag threads, but just a sampling of discussions to the contrary....

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/156416-left-or-right-eyed-what-are-you/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/197140-right-eye-or-left-with-the-m/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/130815-left-eye-right-eye/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/191990-left-eye-shooting/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/11669-left-or-right-eye/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/78971-left-eye-better-than-right-eye/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/40986-left-or-right-eyed-m-photography/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/22568-whos-happiest-left-or-right-eyed-leica-m8-shooters/

 

Jeff

 

As I described about whether you use your left or your right eye you will use your whole brain. That is true even if you have had surgery that cuts the connections between the halves of your brain and is even more true for people that have intact connections between the left and right side of their brain. It simply is not the way the brain's physiology works that what is presented to the right eye goes to the left brain. It goes to both sides.

 

Why do you think I linked to all these discussions that cover this and other points?

 

BTW, a child who had half her brain surgically removed is functioning very well years after.

 

Jeff

[Steve Spencer]

Why do you think I linked to all these discussions that cover this and other points?

 

BTW, a child who had half her brain surgically removed is functioning very well years after.

 

Jeff

I wasn't disagreeing with you I was just trying to explain it more simply. The child who had half her brain removed is actually a very different phenomenon--the plasticity of the brain--in which a new part of the brain can take over functions that would typically be done in a different part of the brain when those parts are damaged or removed. In these cases the brain is organized very differently but still works well. Whether all the functions that are typically involved in processing in the left side of the brain and right side of the brain remain intact and where they are located would vary with the individual case. Anyway, I was just reacting to people thinking that processing with the left eye will make them more creative. That is definitely not supported by any evidence and certainly not by research on what functions occur on the left and right side of the brain.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Manoleica]

Let's be honest, whatever Leica lens you use the SL with will I'm sure be of extremely high IQ.. Cos' that's what Leica excels at.. Whether the SL as a camera suits your individual needs only you can decide.. As a box to use your existing R or M lenses again its personal choice.. AF is a great help at times, but before AF we still managed to get sharp/in focus images.. Photographers are a very innovative bunch.. Maybe the next iteration of the M might tempt me, sadly the SL offers me nothing inspiration wise.. Enjoy your SL's,

And I certainly admire your dedication to Leica..