Should Leica Replace the M with the SL?

[AlanJW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, they should not and it would be a stupid move if they did. I highly doubt they will.

2 different cameras and 2 different systems.

 

Just because some bloggers write they prefer the SL over the M even when using M lenses on the SL doesnt mean this is true for most users.

For my part I sea no advantage to use a 35 or 50mm M lens on the SL vs uses it on the M, but the other way around.

I can see that people who like to use mainly A lenses or longer lenses on the SL would not need 2 different bodies and can also use M glass on the SL.

This is why I am keeping my M-P(240).  I do not see the SL as a substitute but as a supplement.  If the SL I have on order is as good as others say (when in my hands) then I am more likely to sell my D800e than my M.  One thing as a caveat.  I find useful the EVF's ability to show actual exposure on the fly.  In difficult lighting conditions I will sometimes use the clip on in M mode and adjust exposure while looking through the EVF. It is faster than either an OVF or a DSLR.  In both OVF and DSLR, you frequently need to iterate several times before you nail exposure.   Yes, I know that you can bracket, and yes, I used to do that when I shot film, but getting the right exposure is quicker with an EVF.   As someone else said in this thread, all viewfinders are compromises and some compromises are better than others in some circumstances.  Each has strengths and weaknesses, and not one of them is perfect.

[LocalHero1953]

No, they should not and it would be a stupid move if they did. I highly doubt they will.

2 different cameras and 2 different systems.

 

Just because some bloggers write they prefer the SL over the M even when using M lenses on the SL doesnt mean this is true for most users.

For my part I sea no advantage to use a 35 or 50mm M lens on the SL vs uses it on the M, but the other way around.

I can see that people who like to use mainly A lenses or longer lenses on the SL would not need 2 different bodies and can also use M glass on the SL.

I can. Focusing on the M is a matter of focus and recompose, unless your subject is dead centre. Manual focusing on an EVF, especially on one as capable as the SL's, uses the whole screen. Manual focusing on the SL for dead centre subjects may or may not be as quick as on the M. But for off-centre subjects on WA lenses (especially those with "difficult" planes of focus like the 35FLE), and unless you choose to use a focus aid, the SL can be quicker and more accurate for just this reason. The OVF/RF has its advantages, but a central unmovable focus patch is not one of them.

[Peter H]

I can. Focusing on the M is a matter of focus and recompose, unless your subject is dead centre. Manual focusing on an EVF, especially on one as capable as the SL's, uses the whole screen. Manual focusing on the SL for dead centre subjects may or may not be as quick as on the M. But for off-centre subjects on WA lenses (especially those with "difficult" planes of focus like the 35FLE), and unless you choose to use a focus aid, the SL can be quicker and more accurate for just this reason. The OVF/RF has its advantages, but a central unmovable focus patch is not one of them.

 

This is very true.

 

But it wasn't enough to persuade me to keep my DSLRs which offered exactly the same advantage when I used them with my MF lenses. 

 

The most versatile solution must be surely be a built-in RF OVF with a detachable high-quality EVF.

 

Both viewfinder arrangements have some advantages and some disadvantages (varying according to individuals and usage) and this combination is realistically the closest we can expect to come to the best of both worlds, isn't it?

[sc_rufctr]

The M will be with us for a long time to come yet. The SL is great but it is larger than an M and that alone has a lot of appeal.

 

Next question... Will Leica modernize the M? I'd say yes. I can the possibility of replacing the mechanical rangefinder with a hybrid.

[Herr Barnack]

I think it makes no sense at all to get rid of the M. The rangefinder is a unique and very useful system for a lot of people. I think there will always be a place for it. I think it does make sense now to basically phase out the T. I think three interchangeable lens systems, S, SL, & M makes the most sense and then they can have some non-interchangeable lens cameras like the Q. I expect the next M to feature a better sensor, and I hope it would have a BSI sensor which ought to make the excellent M lenses even better--colour cast would be basically gone. I think the M can be more of a stills camera only too. I don't think it needs to have video. I would still like to see a nice attachable EVF for lenses longer or shorter than 28-75(90) mm. That plus better speed and responsiveness and perhaps a little smaller size would make a great camera and a great complement to the SL.

I agree 100%. 

 

The M line is Leica's flagship line with 31 lenses currently being offered, along with both film and full frame digital camera bodies.  All these products are paid for in terms of research and development costs; each sale is more black ink added to Leica's bottom line.  It would be insane to dump the M line.

 

Without the M line, Leica would start to look a lot like a cobbled together conglomeration of Sony/Hasselblad/Samsung.

 

No, thanks.

[LocalHero1953]

This is very true.

 

But it wasn't enough to persuade me to keep my DSLRs which offered exactly the same advantage when I used them with my MF lenses. 

 

The most versatile solution must be surely be a built-in RF OVF with a detachable high-quality EVF.

 

Both viewfinder arrangements have some advantages and some disadvantages (varying according to individuals and usage) and this combination is realistically the closest we can expect to come to the best of both worlds, isn't it?

Moving my eye from the EVF for focusing to the OVF for composition may demonstrate versatility, but not speed. And if the subject moves, it may not demonstrate accuracy either.

 

I have kept my M after getting the SL, but I now appreciate the M over the SL primarily for its size and weight differential (though I'd like it smaller and lighter), and occasionally for its OVF perspective with lenses of 50mm and longer (with wider lenses, the out-of-frame context is less to the fore). I'm happy to accept its compromises as long as it stays small and light.

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Moving my eye from the EVF for focusing to the OVF for composition may demonstrate versatility, but not speed. And if the subject moves, it may not demonstrate accuracy either.

 

I have kept my M after getting the SL, but I now appreciate the M over the SL primarily for its size and weight differential (though I'd like it smaller and lighter), and occasionally for its OVF perspective with lenses of 50mm and longer (with wider lenses, the out-of-frame context is less to the fore). I'm happy to accept its compromises as long as it stays small and light.

 

But realistically it's not often that you'd be trying to use both for the same shot, especially with moving subjects.

 

The point about versatility is that an optimised M would represent something unique. For the occasions when an EVF is the best viewfinder, you could use the EVF in just the same way as you would in the SL.  Aside from not having autofocus I can't see what compromise there is in that arrangement. Of course if AF is important, the M will always be the wrong camera.

 

And for times when a RF/OVF is more appropriate, that's what you use, again without compromise.

 

But constantly shifting from one to the other, or worse, trying to use both at the same time would rarely be a recommended procedure.

[LocalHero1953]

I guess some of these things are a matter of individual work practices and preferences. Thinking about it further, I suppose my point is that, with a choice of M and SL, I no longer need to worry about that element of compromise on the M240. I am happy to take it as a pure OVF/RF body, though I could see technology coming to the aid of the RF aspect in years to come. And I am happy to take the SL for some of the more difficult shots, where I don't have to carry it around all day and where I'm not trying to be discreet in the street.

 

I chose not to get the 24-90SL, so AF doesn't come into the debate as far as I am concerned. I did get a 80-200R f/4 (my only R lens).

[IkarusJohn]

I'm with Paul on this. 

 

The M for me is about the OVF. Focus and recompose does work most of the time (though I find that the focus patch does tend to result in centralised subjects - I see that as my problem, really). I have no interest in having two viewfinders on a camera, when the SL does the whole electronic thing so much better. 

 

You seem to have slipped back into advocating for the flexibility and versatility of the M as a better camera than the SL, Peter. Who are you trying to convince?  Yourself? Potential SL buyers?  M buyers you seemed rather critical of for not holding the faith? Or Leica, hoping to persuade them to make sure the M is always better than the SL?

 

The M and the SL will be a matched pair, priced about the same with similar performance but different functionality. I can't think why Leica would change that. I don't like the clip on EVF on the M, but then my cameras don't take them and any new M I buy doesn't need to have one. I'm sure the next M will have a clip on EVF, and it will be at least as good as the one on the SL - why wouldn't it?  But it will never be core to the M system for me. 

[Rick]

We can write about the feature set of the SL.  Specifically, why the SL with AF, EVF, and the ability to mount M lenses, places the poor M in the position of the red-headed step child of the Leica family.  And, therefore the M could easily be replaced by the SL.

 

But, all of the technical comparisons, image gawking, and lens MTF comparisons ignore the one most important factor that makes the M a better camera, for me anyway.  That is, many of us create better and more creative photographs with the M.  And, no amount of technical critique or comparisons of features explains it, completely.  Paradoxically, the most salient features of the M are not visible to the eye. 

 

Just one example:  The range finder, inferior in many ways, facilitates creativity better than any other OVF or EVF.  Picking up an M camera syncs, range finder to M-lens with my mind better than any AF EVF camera could ever hope to accomplish.  Looking through the view finder the world becomes a collection of creative subjects, lights and darks, color and motion exactly as how I see it without the camera.  And, the amazing feature of the M is that I can directly control all of the creative choices needed  to quickly and simply make the photograph I envision.  And, that makes it art.  

 

At this point it can be argued that any camera could do this.  Maybe.  But, I simply become more creative and artistic when I pick up an M.   Not better images (better sensor/better EVF/faster AF/faster MF in dark/nice zoom/cool booked, etc.). These things don't matter the most, to me.  And, I suspect that many folks that end up trading their M for the SL are going to find something intangible lost in the experience of creating.  

 

I could go on and on why Leica will not replace the M.  But, Leica understands all of this... or they wouldn't place such importance on including photograph exhibits along side their product introductions.  More importantly, Leica showcase photos of exceptional creativity as apposed to photos that mainly demonstrate how technically exceptional their product is.

 

It just comes down to the simple fact that for whatever reason too many photographers choose to create photographs with the M. 

 

 

Rick

[Peter H]

.............

 

You seem to have slipped back into advocating for the flexibility and versatility of the M as a better camera than the SL, Peter. Who are you trying to convince?  Yourself? Potential SL buyers?  M buyers you seemed rather critical of for not holding the faith? Or Leica, hoping to persuade them to make sure the M is always better than the SL?

 

..................

 

 

John, I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone that the M is a better camera than the SL. That would be completely alien to everything I feel about cameras and photography.

 

But I (like many of us) do react against statements that I feel are illogical or mistaken, and some of the things that people have been saying about the SL have struck me as the slightly unsound results of an understandable enthusiasm for a new and attractive camera, but not necessarily as considered or balanced as they might be. That makes me sound as though I'm trying to do the SL down somehow, but I assure you that I'll react in exactly the equivalent way when the details of the new M are announced if people make claims for it that in my judgement are similarly wide of the mark, just as I have done with the current M, the Monochroms, and the other versions of the M.

 

I'm no more immune to prejudice, bias, and all the other personal faults of logic and reason than anyone else, but there are one or two (or more) contributors to the forum who appear to believe that they are immune, so inevitably, when a new camera brings such arguments to the surface I find the weaker part of my personality wants to take issue with them for their unsubstantiated claims, inconsistent arguments and the like.

 

That is all.

 

I've never asserted that one camera is better than another because I don't believe that to be the case. They are different, and the differences can be explored.

 

 

I suppose there is also the slight issue in my mind that if bad idea gains traction, that a falsehood can become a self-fulfilling reality, so that is another spur to me to speak up. So for example, the idea that because the SL is a technologically advanced camera the next M needs to be a traditionalists's back-to-basics type of camera appears to me to be a non-sequitur. But if no one speaks up against the idea, even if Leica does not think this way itself, the market may well determine that this is how the M should develop. Hence my advocacy of a fully up-to-date EVF, not in place of the RF/OVF but in addition to it.  It may sound as though I'm then arguing that the M would be a superior camera to the SL but that is not at all what I'm arguing, but I am trying hard to explain what its strengths would be so that they are not too easily discarded.

 

Of course I over-rate my own negligible impact on Leica's decision making processes in all of this, but the alternative is just to shut up, and that's not really my style, and anyway, judging from the PMs and other messages I get there are many people who want both sides of the case to be spelled out like this. 

[ramarren]

This thread has become one long, somnolence inspiring sequence of "I like the M ( or SL) better!" posts. 

[IkarusJohn]

...

 

But I (like many of us) do react against statements that I feel are illogical or mistaken, and some of the things that people have been saying about the SL have struck me as the slightly unsound results of an understandable enthusiasm for a new and attractive camera, but not necessarily as considered or balanced as they might be.

 

...

 

I suppose there is also the slight issue in my mind that if bad idea gains traction, that a falsehood can become a self-fulfilling reality, so that is another spur to me to speak up.

 

... 

 

 

Excuse the selective quoting, I know it distorts the overall impact of your post, but it highlights the core of our disagreement (perhaps too strong - exchange) over the last few weeks about this camera.

 

In other fields of endeavour, I have seen superior products fail due to nothing more than pack mentality.  A "respected" reviewer damning a product on spurious grounds can be very damaging (I'm not casting you in this role, but I am making the point that an adverse initial reaction can be hugely damaging, and unfairly so).

 

If I can get you to cast your mind back to the release of the camera, if I recall correctly your reaction was - too big, too heavy and too expensive (and probably butt ugly, but that is personal opinion).  I responded that actually comparing the specs to the M and other cameras, those issues were not really major and the price was the same as the M.  I think your reaction was to call my comparisons "spurious".

 

I do not believe the SL will replace the M, nor do I think the M will suffer for its release.  There may be fewer M sales (though I doubt it) - perhaps that is a good thing as those buyers were not true believers.  I think we can be confident the M will continue to provide the best technology on offer for the M(240) replacement, the Monochrom, the slimmed down version (M262), a la carte, M7, MP and M-A.  Looks alive and kicking to me.

 

In terms of your arguments, my motivation for challenging your initial criticism of the SL is exactly as you have stated in the parts I have quoted above.  From my reading, your reaction to the SL was to knock it on very unsound grounds and your concerns over the future of the M resulted in what I considered to be bad ideas that might gain traction.  It's all a question of perspective ...

 

Cheers

(and Merry Christmas and whatever greeting is appropriate for Hogmanay, by the way)

John

[Peter H]

John, since you raise these points again:

 

My initial instinctive reaction (within minutes of seeing the announcement of which I had no prior intimations) was that it was too big to be attractive to me, and too expensive for what it offered me, because the way I work it would effectively offer nothing but an EVF alternative for my MF lenses, and £5,000 for an EVF is not attractive to me. But I have always tried made it clear that this was my personal position and not in any way a statement intended to reflect any sort of universal truth. These personal opinions made the counter arguments, that's it's not much bigger than an M and no more expensive, whilst true in themselves, specious (not spurious) in the context of those subjective evaluations.. 

 

I have right from the start said that I liked the styling, though I have always questioned the faux-prism shape of the EVF bump for being out of kilter with the overall design ethic. I still feel the same. I think it's a shame because it's undermines the form following function ideal, but in the end it's a small aesthetic detail and I've never referred to it since, except in positive terms.

 

Anyway I have no wish to regurgitate these arguments. I've had my say and other than trying to clarify misinterpretations, I don't have much if anything to add on those specific points.

 

I'd like to add though that in almost every post I've made on the subject I've stated that I believe the SL to be a very fine camera. 

 

 

 

Thanks for your good wishes for Christmas and the New Year.. and the same to you and to everyone, whatever their camera preferences! 

[IkarusJohn]

I posted, not to regurgitate the earlier discussion, but to highlight that we are both driven by the same motivation.

 

The biggest issue I have with the SL (to be honest) is that I still haven't come to grips with the options (this is a perennial problem for me), I haven't had the time to actually use it much and if the SL and the M are sitting side by side, my preference remains to take the M and live with the fact that I either stuff a spare lens in my pocket, or I just use one lens.

 

I hope you get to take lots of pictures.

 

Cheers

John

[Peter H]

You too! 

[tom0511]

I can. Focusing on the M is a matter of focus and recompose, unless your subject is dead centre. Manual focusing on an EVF, especially on one as capable as the SL's, uses the whole screen. Manual focusing on the SL for dead centre subjects may or may not be as quick as on the M. But for off-centre subjects on WA lenses (especially those with "difficult" planes of focus like the 35FLE), and unless you choose to use a focus aid, the SL can be quicker and more accurate for just this reason. The OVF/RF has its advantages, but a central unmovable focus patch is not one of them.

For real accurate focus on the SL I need magnification. Without magnification it is ok but sometimes focus is a little behind or in front of the eyes.

I would rate focus accurancy: best: SL with magnification, followed my M, followed my SL without magnification

I can see the advantage of seeing the whole frame in focus with the SL, but then focus and recompose works quite well too

 

By the way I like and use both cameras, but I dont get  "the SL is the better M body" thing

[appleman]

I also replaced my 240 with an SL, but then picked up a 246 to scratch the M itch and also add a unique feature to the set. I'm very pleased with the combination. I've also seen enough images now to consider the 24-90 zoom a future part of the kit.

Have you used your SL with your M lenses?.

[thighslapper]

I have to say I find this thread entirely pointless .......

 

nearly a hundred posts to confirm that some people like the SL and some people like the M and never the twain shall meet.

 

....... and despite all the arguments and pros and cons it's all just down to indefinable 'personal preference'.

 

I've got both ....... love both ..... and am keeping both ..... entirely different cameras and pitching one against the other is a fundamentally fruitless exercise. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[helged]

Fully agree - and something that the next iteration of the M will prove (my guestimate, of course...).