Jump to content

Big Problem!


Ivar B

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just sold my M9P with the intention of upgrading to M or M-P, but two of my friends, who were M users for years, have both owned an SL for some days. They are so delighted it makes me almost change my mind. Last I heard this evening is very convenient focus in darkness with the SL. Apparently the 24-90 is unbelievably good in the 24-50mm area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just sold my M9P with the intention of upgrading to M or M-P, but two of my friends, who were M users for years, have both owned an SL for some days. They are so delighted it makes me almost change my mind. Last I heard this evening is very convenient focus in darkness with the SL. Apparently the 24-90 is unbelievably good in the 24-50mm area.

Go for it Ivar!

 

But I would recommend trying the camera before you decide.

 

The SL is a great camera, but it is not "perfect" and it is quite a different experience from a rangefinder camera like the M 240.

 

A really big bonus for me, that I only discovered after getting the SL, is the capability to accurately focus f1.4 M lenses in really low light.

 

The SL works extremely well with the Summilux 21, Summilux 28 and APO50.

 

The f1.4 lenses focus with a 100% hit-rate, but are arguably somewhat slower to focus with the EVF than on a perfectly calibrated rangefinder.

 

You gain some and you loose some, but for me the decision went in favour of the SL.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

Edited by trond
Link to post
Share on other sites

Focussing on a Nocti 0.95 is easy and 100% hit. A focus never achieved on my M240 with either rangefinder and the low-res EVF. I never new how sharp that lens would be at wide open. And fast and easy.

 

The SL will never need you to go through the Calibration dance with lenses and bodies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you discovered that already Jaap? I was betting to myself it would be at least another month before your SL arrived 

 

 

I know that - old R and M user. Let's see the new M first..

 

 

I suggest ice cream all round.

 

Leica can pay.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The world at large should have problems like we do ...  :rolleyes:

 

The SL and M are indeed very complementary systems, the same way that a film M and a film R (or other SLR) are very complementary but moreso since the SL can actually be used with the exact same lenses. The M offers advantage on size and weight, and the different focusing/framing technique; the SL offers advantages in versatility, speed, and additional features. 

 

Whether you need both is, of course, an entirely different matter. I'm sure I don't, to be honest, but since I have them I'll make the best of it and put them to use as best I can.  B)

 

If I could have only one of them, I'd take the SL due to its versatility—I think. Happily, I'm not faced with that decision at the present time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The world at large should have problems like we do ...  :rolleyes:

 

The SL and M are indeed very complementary systems, the same way that a film M and a film R (or other SLR) are very complementary but moreso since the SL can actually be used with the exact same lenses. The M offers advantage on size and weight, and the different focusing/framing technique; the SL offers advantages in versatility, speed, and additional features. 

 

Whether you need both is, of course, an entirely different matter. I'm sure I don't, to be honest, but since I have them I'll make the best of it and put them to use as best I can.  B)

 

If I could have only one of them, I'd take the SL due to its versatility—I think. Happily, I'm not faced with that decision at the present time. 

 

I dispute the speed question, but I suppose it depends on the circumstances in which you're shooting and your own methodology.  The same probably applies to versatility too: I can certainly use an M in far more day-to-day situations than I could a larger camera simply by virtue of it always being there, but again that depends on what and where we tend to shoot.

 

But I totally agree that the world should only have these problems to worry about!

 

Unfortunately not... :(

 

:D  :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just sold my M9P with the intention of upgrading to M or M-P, but two of my friends, who were M users for years, have both owned an SL for some days. They are so delighted it makes me almost change my mind. Last I heard this evening is very convenient focus in darkness with the SL. Apparently the 24-90 is unbelievably good in the 24-50mm area.

I'm in a similar situation of looking at a new digital Leica. The SL seems to offer quite a bit more than the M-P 240 for not a lot more money, and it can use M-lenses. This late in the M 240 product life (over 3 years old), it seems better to wait to see what the next M offers, or jump to the SL. I don't have to have a rangefinder focus mechanism, and the reports of the SL's EVF are that it is fantastic. It's probably heretical to say this, but give me the M body, with the new EVF, and the new sensor. Keep the second card slot and the video functionality, I don't need them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dispute the speed question, but I suppose it depends on the circumstances in which you're shooting and your own methodology.  The same probably applies to versatility too: I can certainly use an M in far more day-to-day situations than I could a larger camera simply by virtue of it always being there, but again that depends on what and where we tend to shoot.

 

For me, an M is most appropriately used with lenses from about 28mm to about 90mm (35/50/75 are my sweet spot for the M) using the rangefinder where the SL is a better choice for a much wider range of focal lengths ... 19 to 500mm. That's one point of versatility. 

 

An M is not the fastest shooting camera around, it cannot achieve better than 2-3 fps for sequence shots, where the SL can handle up to 11 fps. If you need to do sequence shooting, the M is very limited.

 

An SL outfit with R 60mm macro and R 35mm lenses is just as portable as an M outfit with 35 and 75mm lenses and weighs very close to the same. And right there the SL has more versatility in being able to focus closer. If you wouldn't carry the one due to bulk and weight, you wouldn't carry the other either; I don't think that can count either for or against either camera's versatility. 

Edited by ramarren
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in a similar situation of looking at a new digital Leica. The SL seems to offer quite a bit more than the M-P 240 for not a lot more money, and it can use M-lenses. This late in the M 240 product life (over 3 years old), it seems better to wait to see what the next M offers, or jump to the SL. I don't have to have a rangefinder focus mechanism, and the reports of the SL's EVF are that it is fantastic. It's probably heretical to say this, but give me the M body, with the new EVF, and the new sensor. Keep the second card slot and the video functionality, I don't need them.

 

For those with M-lenses but an earlier M body, the SL seems like a great solution to me.  I'm still a week away from getting my own SL, but I've shot most of the cases that stretch the M[240] to its limits -- ultra wide (18), quite wide (21 to 28), macro with the R60, and 135 and beyond, tripod mounted, using rangefinder focusing with an optical finder (21) or the VF2 for framing, or focus magnification over the VF2.  And I am ready for a really good, accurate single viewfinder for all of these.   I'll probably sell an M[240] to help pay for a few really nice R lenses while they are still sitting patiently on shelves and on EBay.  I don't expect to be in a great hurry to try the next generation M if the only improvement is an external EVF as good as the SL's.  Incidentally, when you do live view you get video, so a back to basics M successor might well pitch both of them and gain a better sensor in return.  I might then be interested in the next iteration of the ME262 when the time comes.

 

scott

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, an M is most appropriately used with lenses from about 28mm to about 90mm (35/50/75 are my sweet spot for the M) using the rangefinder where the SL is a better choice for a much wider range of focal lengths ... 19 to 500mm. That's one point of versatility. 

 

An M is not the fastest shooting camera around, it cannot achieve better than 2-3 fps for sequence shots, where the SL can handle up to 11 fps. If you need to do sequence shooting, the M is very limited.

 

An SL outfit with R 60mm macro and R 35mm lenses is just as portable as an M outfit with 35 and 75mm lenses and weighs very close to the same. And right there the SL has more versatility in being able to focus closer. If you wouldn't carry the one due to bulk and weight, you wouldn't carry the other either; I don't think that can count either for or against either camera's versatility. 

 

Many will agree with you. I don't, though I totally accept the validity of your point of view, as it applies to you.

 

For me personally, the most valuable type of versatility comes once my most favoured lens is attached, which in my case will never be very long nor very wide, and will almost certainly be an M lens.  And though I'll use both long and ultra-wides very happily, the M is more than sufficient for those excursions into the types of photography involved. But for the photography I'm passionate about and take most seriously  the M will outshine anything else because it uniquely gives the option of being a beautifully realised small unit with a truly delightful OVF, the best in the business by far, but with the simple addition of a slide-on EVF it will match all the important functionality functionality of the SL that I could ask for, aside from AF which I jettisoned joyfully about five years ago anyway. But of course this will all only work properly once the new M gives us the EVF that the M deserves! But it will.

 

So again Leica keeps us hanging on: SL users for some AF lenses to allow the camera to live up to its potential, and M users for an EVF to do the equivalent. In the meantime though, we're both happy enough.

 

As for which camera is more versatile, more useful, or whatever quality most matters, that will always be a question of the photographic intent of the individual behind the viewfinder. The reason we keep bumping up against each other is not because of the cameras but because we evidently have very different ideas about photography, and we haven't even started that conversation!  :)

Edited by Peter H
Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter H, 

 

It sounds like the SL is not for you, and you keep posing questions and statements that make it seem as if you wished it were but are disappointed that it isn't. An M updated with a couple of additional improvements that you prefer would be your ideal camera. What you are looking for is an improvement to the M/M-P typ 240, which they have not yet produced. The SL is not that; it is a distinctly different camera line. With luck, Leica will produce what you want on the next major M update round. 

 

I have both M-P and SL, and I can see capabilities and advantages of both for my use. They complement each other, just as the R system and M system complemented each other in the past. Leica's not keeping me hanging on anything ... that is: AF is a nice convenience but not having it doesn't get in my way; I have a bunch of very nice R lenses which shine particularly nicely on the SL; and the limitations I see in the M-P are unimportant since I have the SL when I run into them. The current M-P is just fine for me, for exactly what it is, as it is, and needs little in way of improvement. With the introduction of the SL, Leica has fulfilled precisely what I was looking for to complement the M-P and expand upon the versatility and integration of my existing camera equipment kit. It also provides a future path with more automation and functionality should I choose to pursue that. It's a win-win situation with no disappointments or regrets. 

 

Discussing the different viewpoints we have about photography in general isn't a subject for the Leica SL forum section, it's a topic for "Philosophy of Photography" or something like that.  B) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you're absolutely right, I would have liked it to be for me.

 

And I keep hoping that I'll discover something that it offers that I need, because I love new cameras and, without wishing to offend anyone, new toys. But try ad I might I can't find anything if real value that, if I'd have needed it, wouldn't have been available elsewhere for a good number of years.

 

In fact my disappointment doesn't stem solely from the fact that it isn't a new M but more from the fact that despite its appearance it feels to me like a step back in time to an era when fast AF was an exciting novelty.

 

I'll finish there. The philosophy of photography sounds much more my sort of thing. Thanks for your patience with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you're absolutely right, I would have liked it to be for me.

 

And I keep hoping that I'll discover something that it offers that I need, because I love new cameras and, without wishing to offend anyone, new toys. But try ad I might I can't find anything if real value that, if I'd have needed it, wouldn't have been available elsewhere for a good number of years.

 

In fact my disappointment doesn't stem solely from the fact that it isn't a new M but more from the fact that despite its appearance it feels to me like a step back in time to an era when fast AF was an exciting novelty.

 

I'll finish there. The philosophy of photography sounds much more my sort of thing. Thanks for your patience with me.

 

(bolded) Doesn't feel like that to me, perhaps because I never experienced the 'exciting novelty' of fast AF. I only slowly became accustomed to AF ... didn't own an AF interchangeable lens camera that I liked until 2004 or so ... and always looked upon it as a nice convenience when it works. One of the first things I figure out on any camera, even today, is how to focus the lens manually. The folks at the local store always laugh when I look at a new camera because the first thing I do is switch off AF and see whether I can focus it easily...  B)

 

To me, the SL feels like a modern, TTL viewing camera—the paradigm shifting jump past the FF SLR for Leica. In the last analysis, it's just another really nice camera. Once I am comfortable with how to operate it, the quality I'm looking for is for me to create with it, not because of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that many argue that SL and M are complementary lines. For some, this is no doubt true. I see them mostly as substitutes. Which body should I choose for Leica lenses? I note that devote M users are selling off M bodies and order the SL. Perhaps a new M model will have an impact on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...