Jump to content

SL b&w conversions VS MM246


BigBabyEarl

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently came up on the list for a MM246 after a long wait. Days later I received my SL. The images and experience with both cameras is really amazing. I do love using the EVF on both to compose in black and white with of course the SL being waaaaay nicer to do so. It's nice to have the rangefinder to jump back and forth to the evf2 for just clarity or a stripped down feel. Both cameras perform well at higher ISO's. The images side by side AFTER post work are both incredible, stunning.

 

My question is- Does anyone intend on keeping both cameras or does it make sense to say goodbye to the MM246 and get more glass?

 

The main benefit I see in keeping the MM246 is the experience. B&W only, smaller, clean pure files. The SL seems to do it all though and I'm torn. I'm tempted to buy S glass to use on the SL and work towards a medium format system or just round out my M glass collection. Either way, I need some help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The main benefit I see in keeping the MM246 is the experience. B&W only, smaller, clean pure files. The SL seems to do it all though and I'm torn. I'm tempted to buy S glass to use on the SL and work towards a medium format system or just round out my M glass collection. Either way, I need some help.

I can't help - I'm keeping both But I've been through the same thoughts (except that I really don't want to go MF).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the same thoughts, but just on the choice between the M240 vs. the SL. At this time, is there a compelling advantage for the 240 rather than the SL? I can use my Leica M glass on the SL. The cost differences are relatively small.

 

I really hope Leica announces the specs for the next M quickly. I prefer the M form factor, at least I think I do...  

Medium format is almost certainly going to mean a considerably larger camera body. I used to have a Mamiya 7 II. It was technically very good, but I never liked the large body.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the M-P and cancelled my MM246 order a couple of weeks before the SL was announced. I decided to use that money to buy the SL, which is a camera I'd been waiting for based on a rumor three-and-some years ago. I was already feeling that I didn't need the MM246 ... My interest in it was for the elevated sensitivity it provides ... but I'm not finding myself missing it with the M-P or the SL. 

 

But I'm not selling the M-P.  :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I got all three (M246, SL and S) with the intent to narrow it down to two. That's not easy as they serve different purposes, but my conclusion is the SL is a unique platform which makes up for its shortcomings in IQ vs M246 and S in it's ability to let you produce more photos at a higher hit-rate than any other camera I have used. The S lenses are of the highest quality, but I fear they will be slower to focus than SL native lenses - they are not great even on the S, possibly due to the amount of glass that needs to be moved.

In short: if your goal is to produce allround images then I highly recommend the SL - possibly with an M as a sidekick if you're a street shooter. The SL is a photo-making "Maschine" :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I got all three (M246, SL and S) with the intent to narrow it down to two. That's not easy as they serve different purposes, but my conclusion is the SL is a unique platform which makes up for its shortcomings in IQ vs M246 and S in it's ability to let you produce more photos at a higher hit-rate than any other camera I have used. The S lenses are of the highest quality, but I fear they will be slower to focus than SL native lenses - they are not great even on the S, possibly due to the amount of glass that needs to be moved.

In short: if your goal is to produce allround images then I highly recommend the SL - possibly with an M as a sidekick if you're a street shooter. The SL is a photo-making "Maschine" :)

That's a really interesting insight from someone who has experienced all three systems. It helps to relate the different characteristics of the cameras to one's own priorities. Thanks for posting this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I got all three (M246, SL and S) with the intent to narrow it down to two. That's not easy as they serve different purposes, but my conclusion is the SL is a unique platform which makes up for its shortcomings in IQ vs M246 and S in it's ability to let you produce more photos at a higher hit-rate than any other camera I have used. The S lenses are of the highest quality, but I fear they will be slower to focus than SL native lenses - they are not great even on the S, possibly due to the amount of glass that needs to be moved.

In short: if your goal is to produce allround images then I highly recommend the SL - possibly with an M as a sidekick if you're a street shooter. The SL is a photo-making "Maschine" :)

The SL could easily be the one body solution. But, having sold my 240 to fund the SL, I am now thinking that a M body would be a good sidekick, as you stated. 262 looks interesting as the barebones opposite of the uber loaded SL...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the M262 is on the table. The idea is does the SL's b&w conversions justify losing the MM246? Does the MM246 become a camera more of experience rather than superior b&w quality. The SL seems to do it all. If you had a second system, a camera that gives more to the team is the goal. An MM246 may be that or going after S could too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the M262 is on the table. The idea is does the SL's b&w conversions justify losing the MM246? Does the MM246 become a camera more of experience rather than superior b&w quality. The SL seems to do it all. If you had a second system, a camera that gives more to the team is the goal. An MM246 may be that or going after S could too.

 

For doing monochrome work, which is what I mainly seem to do with the M-P, the trade off for me is the ease of using  in-camera digital filters and/or software rendering in LR vs the high ISO capabilities of the MM246. I decided to stick with the M-P rather than have to work with optical filters ... for the present anyway. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the above, if you look at the corners on wide M lenses presumably the M is a no brainer

 

If you are using the SL I would question why bother even using M lenses, as its a fast AF system

 

Ultimately the SL with zoom weighs so much more then the M that I would never consider it for a travel camera, so in this respect I don't think they compete. But thats just me ....

Edited by colonel
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...