M or SL with M lenses

[tompoes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have currently an M 240 with 21 mm SEM, 35 and 50 mm Summilux en a Summarit 75 mm. Furthermore i am using a T and the Q.
Most used focal lengths are 35 and 50 mm with 21mm and 75 mm only 15% of the time.
Documentairy and Urban photography are my preferred shooting styles.

With slowly worsening eyesight i am now considering to switch to the SL but remain rather hesitant to do so.

According Jonathan Slack the perfect camera for M lenses is an M camera as he is in love with the rangefinder experience.
On the other hand he thinks that the SL is a perfect partner for M lenses. I am not in love with the rangefinder system.

With the SL i gain probably 1 to 1,5 ISO stop but understand that the startup time with manual lenses is rather slow,this is a major disadvantage. Furthermore i can migrate in the future to AF prime lenses and can use my current T 18-56 and 11-23 lenses on the SL

Steve Huff states that he prefers the SL for manual focussing of M lenses irrespective of focal lengths.
Others state that wide angles are almost impossible to focus accurately without 10x magnification but from 50mm the SL has the edge. This adds extra steps for focussing of wide angle lenses.

The 35 and 50mm Summilux can be focussed without the zoom aid according to some of the forum members.
Also have seen a remark that under poor light conditions you need to stop down to be able to focus accurately whereafter you go back to the chosen aperture. This again adds extra steps.

My question to M owners who also have an SL is whether it is the right move to sell my M and use the SL with M lenses with the prime objective to improve manual focussing in speed and accuracy.

[LocalHero1953]

Obviously, there is limited experience of people owning both the M and the SL, so opinions will evolve over time.

That said, I don't think there is a clear answer: or rather each are better in different circumstances and for different lenses.

For me, the M is easier/quicker to focus for lenses in the central 35-75 range. For longer lenses the WYSIWYG view of the SL is better, especially wide open where DOF is thin. Other lenses with a thin DOF, like the Noctilux, also appear to benefit, but I don't have one.

For wide lenses the precise plane of focus is harder to see in the unassisted SL, but then the DOF is deeper anyway. Focus magnification in the SL is useful here if you want absolute accuracy (and, I'd guess, more accurate than the M, though the latter is good enough).

To my mind, focus magnification will be practically unusable on the SL until the activation button is moved. Even then it will be better for static subjects rather than moving ones. Focus peaking is an acquired taste, but i quite like it as long as I don't have to take specific action to switch it on - it then just supplements my assessment of sharpness.

In low light the bright EVF of the SL is a real benefit.

 

But, don't forget, a new M is likely to be around within the year, and it will probably have an EVF (attachable, I suspect) of a similar standard to the SL's. So you could just wait!

Edited December 2, 2015 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Erik Gunst Lund]

I think you have made a nice summary yourself!

 

......

But, don't forget, a new M is likely to be around within the year, and it will probably have an EVF (attachable, I suspect) of a similar standard to the SL's. So you could just wait!

 

I agree with this, a new M is just around the corner that might have a similar EVF option 

 

 

 

IMHO the SL is fantastic with M lenses but even more so with the native L mount lenses.

 

 

 

You will be happy with the SL - but only if you trust the focus peaking patches and that you will have too see and try for yourself before deciding, SL is not an armchair buy.

 

 

 

I would like one more time to try and explain how I observe the 24mm 3.8 behaves wide open on an SL - The red focus patches are more or less (exaggerated I know ) visible over the entire frame from closest to infinity focus setting on the lens focus ring - This is not helpful since in reality the lens is not sharp from closest to infinity focus point, sure it has a lot of depth of field but it doesn't have a lot of depth of focus ( where the peak sharpness is)

 

You can actually see this depth of focus on the SL if you zoom in and look at the 'matte screen' then you see the depth of focus travel closer or further away as you focus the lens and the red focus peaking patches move along the sharp edges making this visible to you.

 

 

 

Now, to compare this to a DSLR and MF a wide angle lens directly on the matte screen yes no big deal focus and shoot,,, sure I have gotten away with this no problem but! When I need peak sharpness at a specific point I need to go to Live View on the DSLR and zoom in to see the depth of sharpness to be absolutely sure its where I want it - Before live view I just took the shot and had too look on the rear display or wait for the film to get developed...

 

 

 

Now, to compare this to a Leica M9 - When you see the rangefinder focus patch align and/or vertical lines meet up, you know where your peak sharpness is... even for the wide angle lenses - So simple so effective.

 

This is of cause only valid if your camera and lenses are calibrated and doesn't suffer from focus wondering off as you change aperture...

 

[wlaidlaw]

I was very pleasantly surprised by the performance of the SL with the 18SEM. I did not expect this lens at the extreme end of the range to be a brilliant performer, especially wide open (well as wide open as it gets at f3.4). Initially, I  thought it was a little bit soft at the edges and corners, but easily curable by increasing structure in C1. I then took an identical photo with the M240 and 18SEM, expecting it to be noticeably crisper at the corners. I was surprised to find that the M240 was slightly softer and with more purple fringing than the SL. 

 

I find focusing with manual lenses very easy up to around 90mm. Above that the magnification is useful but difficult to use when not on a tripod or monopod, as you find the wavering of the image in the VF makes deciding optimal focus a bit of a lottery. On a tripod or monopod, it is brilliant and much better than the so-so EVF on the M240. 

 

Below is a picture of zero artistic merit but just to show what is possible with really long lenses. This is with a 1200 mm Super Tele Tessar f11 lens, which was very difficult to focus correctly with the M240. This is a neighbouring house about 100 metres away and is uncropped. I had to correct for a small amount of pin cushion distortion but apart from that and re-sizing, this is from an out of camera JPEG. 

 

Wilson

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ramarren]

SL:

 

• I haven't noticed the start up time. Just doesn't matter much to me, I guess. 
• Determining critical focus is easier as focal length gets longer, but I've had no problems focusing 19 and 24 mm lenses consistently without aids as long as I take my time. I find using focus magnification is very helpful, however, and is fast to engage for getting the focus right, then automatically switches off when I press the shutter release half-way for framing. It's a good workflow for me. 
• Overall, between my M-P typ 240, X typ 113, and the SL, the SL produces the best picture quality straight out of camera to my eye. None of the three are anything less than excellent, however, so that's a personal matter—they're all different. 
• All my M lenses work well on the SL, but I find the ergonomics of the camera are better when I use the R lenses and, in general, the R lenses produce more even illumination throughout the aperture range. It's a bit of a toss up so far, however, so I'd just use whatever I had and not worry about it. 

 

M-P:

 

• What I love using with the M-P most are the 35, 50 and 75 mm lenses. I have a 24, 90, and 135 for it too, but for me the SL is better with the longer and wider lenses. 
• The somewhat smaller size and lighter weight of the M-P make it a better choice for "walking about" with those three focal lengths. 
• I shoot differently with the M-P in terms of framing and such ... looser, more casual ... same as I've always found when comparing through-the-lens cameras vs rangefinder cameras. 

 

 

 

My question to M owners who also have an SL is whether it is the right move to sell my M and use the SL with M lenses with the prime objective to improve manual focussing in speed and accuracy.

 

That's going to depend more on you, and on your eyesight and preferences, than on the camera. The only way to know for sure is to handle them together, with the same lenses, and see what works best for you. 

 

For me, in some situations and with some lenses, there's clear advantage to one or the other camera. They are complementary. I pick the one that suits the use best at any given time, as I've always done between having an RF camera and an SLR camera in my kit.

[gpwhite]

"My question to M owners who also have an SL is whether it is the right move to sell my M and use the SL with M lenses with the prime objective to improve manual focussing in speed and accuracy."

 

 

Tompoes,  I purchased an SL principally to shoot my few R lenses, and it does this beautifully as one would expect. I have been very surprised by how well the SL handles my M lenses, which are mostly wides. My experience from prints is that the SL files have a different feel to M. If you shoot film, a rough analogy might be Provia to Velvia, respectively. Just my opinion.

 

After considering the differences I noted above about M vs SL files (whether they are in perfect focus or not), your question is about two elements of focusing that are in opposition to each other for me. In other words, my hit rate at f/1.4 is correlated with the amount of time taken to nail focus. For M lenses 16mm to 50mm (using f/2 on the latter), the M 240 RF is certainly fastest for me (SL = M hite rates). Longer than 50mm, or 50mm at f/1.4,focus accuracy with the SL is much better than M, so speed is not a useful comparison.

 

If forced to choose one or the other, like Jono, I would shoot 16mm to 50mm on an M 240. But my choice would be based on factors other than focusing speed and accuracy...  so I don't know if my excursion here is all that helpful for you, but I tried  .

Edited December 2, 2015 by gpwhite

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi There

Well - I'll see what I can do here

I've tried all the 'difficult' M lenses with both the SL and the M240, and although I agree with Sean Reid that most of them work better on the M than the SL, I think that the difference is marginal, and much too small to be relevant in real life situations (unless you shoot landscapes at infinity, with the lens wide open and stick your motif in the corner . . . and even then you'll probably be okay). Some lenses may even work better on the SL (Sean Reid suggests the 28 summilux as a case in point).

 

I find it extremely easy to focus M lenses on the SL, even in low light, and without needing to resort to focus aids (magnification and peaking not required). This goes for all the lenses I've used: WATE, 28 'cron, elmarit, summilux  35, 'cron FLE, 50 'lux, APO Cron, 75 'lux, APO 'Cron

 

I don't think the startup time with manual lenses is any slower than with SL lenses - I'm almost certain about this - I think someone must be muddled about it  -  certainly it's absolutely no problem (unless you have a card which misbehaves). 

 

Your current T lenses will work really well on the SL (here is a link to a low light party shot exclusively with the 18-56 http://adobe.ly/1MZdL83).

 

I haven't had any issues focusing wide angle lenses - seems to me that if the depth of field is that big then the focus point is that much less critical . . . I agree that the point of critical focus is less easy to see on a 21 SEM than it is on a 75 summilux . . . . but it's also much less important!

 

Although many aver that focusing is best done wide open and then stopping down to your desired Aperture - I reckon this is quite unnecessary unless you're doing something critical AND you have a tripod. If you want to shoot at f16 in a darkened room, well, I agree, focusing is a little harder than it is at f5.6 (where the image will be much better too). 

 

 

My question to M owners who also have an SL is whether it is the right move to sell my M and use the SL with M lenses with the prime objective to improve manual focussing in speed and accuracy.

 

So the answer to your question (on the premise that you're not welded to the rangefinder experience is a resounding YES!

[Peter E]

I'm a M user too and I've tested the SL last monday.

I've put my Noctilux f1 on it @f1 and focussing through the evf was easy, this without magnification or focus peaking.

This is amazing!

I tested my 75lux at 1,4 too, again, easy to make spot on images...

 

I was sold for this camera so I've ordered one and going to sell my M-P, not that I don't like my M-P, I love it, but the SL is a better tool for me(11frames/sec, 4K,..) and I'm going to use it with M lenses only.

 

Also interesting to know, the 35mm 8elements with goggles is just fitting on the SL too

 

Best regards

Peter

[Malvolio]

Has anyone used the 28 Cron with the SL? Would be interested in the results

[FlashGordonPhotography]

28 Cron is good on the SL. Far corners are slightly better on the M but still usable and sharpen up nicely when stopping down.

 

Gordon

[cpclee]

I spent about 30 min yesterday with an SL and a 35 Summarit-M mounted on it.  Here are some thoughts.

 

- The EVF was, as others reported, big and bright.  And it maintained very good colors and contrast until the lighting got dim at which point things started to look a bit washed out.  Overall I was impressed.

- In the lighting condition I was in (inside a mall at night time), the EVF was actually brighter and more resolving than a SLR groundglass finder would be in the same environment.  That latter would have become somewhat dim in that light and the coarseness of the groundglass would have become quite visible and would block details.

- Focus peaking was not very useful for me and was easily fooled (eg. backlit).  So I turned it off entirely.

- With the 35, at apertures from 2.4 - 8 (I didn't test smaller apertures than 8.0), manual focusing was quite easy with the magnification engaged.  But the button to turn on magnification, as others suggested, is not conveniently located and would take your eye off the EVF or your left hand off the focus ring or both to reach this button.

- Without magnification, I actually did better manual focusing than I thought I would.  I am much faster and accurate still with a rangefinder, but the experience focusing the SL wasn't so bad.  There is enough contrast and resolving power in the EVF that most of the time you can get within a usable ball park focus-wise.  To me it was easier and more accurate than groundglass focusing on an SLR, but less easy and slower than a rangefinder.   For this 35mm focal length that is.

- I didn't find the ease of focusing to depend on the aperture much.

- I think with some practice, I can probably get to a 70-80% hit rate without magnification, and close to 100% with.  

 

Bottomline: It was more enjoyable to use than I expected.  I like the EVF over optical SLR groundglass finders in terms of manual focusing experience, but may still prefer the rangefinder for this focal length. 

[tompoes]

Thanks for comments and reviews. As i never bonded with the M 240 i parted with some problems from the rangefinder system. Financially i got a very good offer plus the fact that i had to incur costs to recalibrate my M system led to the conclusion that i only needed € 1200 to make the switch. Just received the camera and playing now with the menu's. Initially a bit overwhelming but after an hour i got the hang of it, really very good. From some initial test shots i concluded that i like the color output more then from the M.
The M 240 beat the SL in the department of looks en size and that was the difficult part of the switch. Rangefinder focussing is indeed faster but using the magnifying feature of the SL the accuracy of focussing greatly improved.
I know that the new M will likely include a lot of the new technologies from the Q and the SL so i could have waited for that solution but with the limited financial outlay i give the SL a try. If i do not like this system i can always switch back to the new M in 2017. The migration to an AF system whilst retaining the M lenses appeal to me. Will use prime lenses only as the zoom is too large for me.

[Flu]

Nice choice and congrats!

Here's my take on the systems. I would choose the same and shoot the SL in more situations than the M - either with the zoom 24-90 (which is superb!) or with M lenses attached. In fact, I shoot with my Q, SL, and S 007 more often than my M's which are just looking pretty sitting on a shelf as decor. The M, at least for me, is a camera I use when I want to leisurely take photos in a relaxed pace and method. Whereas with the other tools, I am looking for precise critical focus, better colors, much faster camera responsiveness, more DR, etc etc...

[sc_rufctr]

I hate to say it but.... Purely from a practical point of view the SL makes a lot more sense than the M.

So for someone who doesn't own either the decision is clear. Get the SL and enjoy using literally hundreds of Leica lenses and many many more from other brands.

 

Obviously you can use "other" lenses on the M but with the SL it's a whole lot easier.

[Paul-B]

The SL is really quite tempting to me. I use an M240 and a Sony A7II with the Voigtlander close up adapter. I shoot a lot of shallow depth of field - I have the Canon 50mm 0.95 with rangefinder coupling (converted to M mount) and a 80mm 1.4 R among my lenses.

 

The EVF is required to get accurate focus of the 50mm on the M240, but I very much value the automatic zoom that the rangefinder couple provides when I move the focus ring. However, images are normally better from the Sony - probably because of the higher resolution EVF and the better implementation of the focus peaking.

 

I really don't use the rangefinder mechanism much, for street work I zone focus and shoot stealthily from the hip (although with practice I have become pretty good at nailing around f 1.4 @ 50mm at the 3m distance mark) but the general portability and form factor stealth of the M remains attractive. I also think that it's old school looks adds a degree of stealth / acceptance in street work.

 

My other lenses are 21mm f1.8 (Voigtlander), 28mm f/2.8 (Zeiss), 50mm Nikkor f1.4 LTM and a couple of Jupiters (35mm and 85mm). Also, I have the Zeiss 55mm f1.8 AF for the Sony (but never use it).

 

Having the two cameras is useful when owning only prime lenses, I'll often have both with different focal lengths mounted for portrait and model work.

 

As I write this out, it seems like the logical thing would be to stay with my current two bodies but that SL EVF still calls to me... Also, there's the rejuvenation factor - investing in any new kit has a satisfying disruptive effect on my work, a rekindling of creative intent and renewed motivation to shoot.

 

The SL feels like the right camera for me, but can it compete with the sum of the two cameras I currently own. A purchase of the SL would require the sale of both.

 

A dilemma.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Despite initially being interested in the SL I can’t see the point of using my M lenses with a bigger and weightier body particularly when those lenses are optimized for use on the M Series bodies. I also much prefer the dedicated buttons of the M Series.

 

I look forward to using the successor to the M240 with an OVF and an industry leading accessory EVF together with the much improved processor.

 

And please, don’t mess with those dedicated buttons!

[Peter H]

Despite initially being interested in the SL I can’t see the point of using my M lenses with a bigger and weightier body particularly when those lenses are optimized for use on the M Series bodies. I also much prefer the dedicated buttons of the M Series.

 

I look forward to using the successor to the M240 with an OVF and an industry leading accessory EVF together with the much improved processor.

 

And please, don’t mess with those dedicated buttons!

 

 

Absolutely.

 

This would be the ultimate manual focus camera, with the two viewfinder options (though I hope the implementation in the M will be superior to the SL's, more along Fuji lines, as I've said before). I can't believe it isn't possible.

 

The SL will no doubt be the ultimate AF camera for Leica lenses, where the viewfinder limitations are not an issue because they really only apply when using manual focus, so if I buy an SL it will be as an AF camera. I'd like to see a few more lenses becoming available though, before that becomes a reality.

 

Not having a stock of R lenses, just a couple, a macro and a 180 which work perfectly well on an M, I'm convinced it comes down to the M for MF and the SL for AF, for me. It's was simple as that. When I'm ready to go back to AF, the SL will be the camera for me.

[IkarusJohn]

... I've tried all the 'difficult' M lenses with both the SL and the M240, and although I agree with Sean Reid that most of them work better on the M than the SL, I think that the difference is marginal, and much too small to be relevant in real life situations (unless you shoot landscapes at infinity, with the lens wide open and stick your motif in the corner . . . and even then you'll probably be okay). Some lenses may even work better on the SL (Sean Reid suggests the 28 summilux as a case in point)....

 

Excuse the selective quote.

 

I am interested in the oft repeated mantra that M lenses are best used on M cameras. Certainly true in the case of the Sony A7 cameras, but why so on the SL?  The sensor on the SL is made to a Leica spec, with every intention to be M compatible, and it's a development of the M(240) sensor, via the Q camera along the way. The register distance is the same with an M adapter mounted. Why should M lenses perform any different on the SL than they do on the M?  If the M(240) is used with the EVF, even the focusing is the same (though the EVF is better on the SL). 

 

Yet, I accept that both Jono and Sean have found differences with some lenses - I've only seen one lens I own tested, so it's too early to tell. 

 

It seems the SL consistently outperforms the M(240) for resolution in the centre with any M lens. The SL outperforms the M(240) across the board with the 28 Summilux, and time will tell if there are others. Vignetting and colour shift look fine with the SL, if not better to my eye. 

 

I don't doubt Sean's testing technique, but I do wonder what we're seeing. By provoking the cameras with the most problematic M mount lenses, I appreciate that Sean is identifying the performance differences in the hardware, so to an extent testing Voigtlander lenses is a reasonable thing to do. But by pixel peeping in the corners, I wonder just how relevant the differences are. 

 

Apart from an LTM 50 Summitar from 1948 and my 28 Summicron, all my M lenses are modern designs, made with the tolerances of digital sensors in mind. I'm no tester, but I will be very interested to see how modern Leica lenses perform. The only test I've seen so far is the fabulous 28 Summilux, and that was better on the more modern SL sensor. 

 

So, my question is, why the difference?  Both sensors designed for 35mm format for use with M lenses for Leica. Why should one perform better?  Is it because the SL apparently makes more adjustments in camera?  The truth is that both cameras digitally enhance the image to some degree. 

 

To my mind, there are good reasons to prefer one camera over the other, but I have a lingering doubt that the performance of M lenses on either camera isn't one of them. 

[wlaidlaw]

John, 

 

There is a lot in what you say. I have tried so far in M lenses, the 18SEM, the 28 Summicron  and the 35 Summicron. The 18 SEM and 28 Summicron were fractionally sharper at the edges, wide open on the SL. The 35 was about equal, with maybe the tiniest shading in favour of the M240 but nothing that anyone not pixel peeping would notice. The 80-200 Vario-Elmar-R is miles easier to focus on the SL than the M240. I like the Noctilux 50/.95 on the SL because it seems better balanced than the M240 and super easy to focus but have not done back to back comparison. The other M lenses are next week's job. 

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[IkarusJohn]

Thanks Wilson. 

 

Maybe we should try to establish a register?  When I get my camera (hopefully before Christmas), I will be trying the following:

 

15 Distagon (expecting horrendous colour shift)

21 Summilux

28 Summicron & Summilux

35 Summilux fle

50 Summilux, Noct & Summitar

75 Summilux

90 AA Summicron

 

APO-Elmarit-R 180/2.8, with APO-Extender 2x

 

Looking at that list, I realise (of course) that the 75 Summilux was also designed for film. I don't hold out much hope for the 15 Distagon, except in B&W. I'd be interested in suggestions for testing - I don't have an image board, but I could put together some fruit & veges :-).  Seriously, though - middle distance?  Infinity?  I assume we want detail off axis?  Brick walls are pretty boring, and I don't have one ...