Jump to content

M owners: your 2 main reasons why you purchased SL


MRJohn

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am curious to understand and rank what the main reasons are why current M owners complement or replace their rather uptodate M system body (e.g. M9, M240, M262, MM) with an SL.

 

E.g.: EVF, autofocus, zoom, speed, future readiness, even better image quality with M lenses using SL vs M240, use of R lenses, better frame rates, anything else... which 2 main features drove you toward the decision. If you got one as a surprise gift for Christmas by your spouse, congratulations, no need to answer  :)

 

Reason 1:

Reason 2:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sure I was not going to buy and SL until I played with one at the Leica launch. I have several cameras that do essentially the same thing. So I was a bit surprised with myself when I bought on the first day.

 

1. Using Leica M&R lenses with an EVF and flash. I often need both flash and the EVF together. The MF Grip SCA adaptor and EVF2 solution for the M is clunky. With the MF grip and EVF in place the M is the same size and weight as the SL but with poor handling.

 

2. System consolidation. I currently use 5 different camera brands, mainly because of point 1. I will be working to consolidate that to no more than three.

 

I'll add a third. Like the M, there's something about the SL. I has an X factor that wants me to pick it up and use it. Possibly something to do with the sensational build quality.

 

Gordon

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

In my case, it is ease of use, particularly with wide angle M lenses.  I like the weight of the M240 better (and even more so the M9) but I am not a natural rangefinder focuser (I wear glasses) and the electronic focusing aids that these cameras offer are limited.

 

The SL produces attractive pictures (has a good auto exposure and a pleasing colour palate).  I have still not finally decided whether the weight penalty is worth it, compared with the M240 or the A7rII (which is portable; has IBIS; a wider dynamic range, 42Mpx; but the corners of wide angle M lens shots are subject to some smearing -- native ones are OK, but bulkier than the M lenses; and it is harder to produce attractive images from the RAW files).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on Jono's initial review I decided to buy in early (for the M240, I took my time).  It was the viewfinder capability and having already gotten some good R longish telephotos and M ultra wide angles that convinced me they would work better on the SL than on my M[240]s.  So I also bought into a few R medium telephotos (80-100), and am very pleased with all of them.  I'm very comfortable with the M for 28 to 50, so no reason to change there.  That's enough, but #2 is that I am starting to enjoy the S-style UI.

 

scott

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1- ability to have perfect focus across all M lenses including Nocti 0.95. No more calibration required. EVF allows consistent focus with no need to check after the shot. EVF also allows to see exposure without checking.

 

2 -sensor cleaning done automatically

 

3 - (took the liberty of adding a 3rd) the 24-90 AF zoom. Great for fast action shots and convenient to not change lenses when you don't know what you expect to shoot. The T lenses for AF when you need AF are very good. For reportage, I will always prefer a fast 35 mm AF lens to avoid the 'did you just take a picture of be? Delete it now' comments ice received.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1) I hated the EVF accessory on my M(240), but found there were just too many situations where I needed it in order to overcome limitations in focus accuracy from a rangefinder--things like shooting my daughter's theater events, or getting nice, crisp eyelashes in a portrait at 75mm or higher.  I even found myself using the 'T' over the M(240) for situations like this.  The SL takes care of these problems

2) Ability to have AF and image stabilization for situations that call for either feature opens up the Leica system to much more dynamic subjects than I could ever handle with the M(240) or even the 'T'.

 

- Jared

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like several others, I had no intention of buying until I tried one at my local Leica store (SF). It just so happened that there was a hard to focus R 80 Summilux attached (which I've since acquired), and I was hooked. So, my reasons, then and now:

 

1) Great ergonomics for my large collection of  R lenses (which were cumbersome to use on the M 240) including the 15 2.8, 180 f. 2.8, 60 and 100 macro lenses, plus a few hard to focus M lenses. The fabulous viewfinder makes R and M lenses extremely easy to focus, even the R80, Noctilux 1.0 and Summilux 75. I am addicted to Leica glass but not as much as others in this community to the "rangefinder experience" and was quite happy to have an alternate way of using my M and R lenses, particularly with aging eyesight.

 

2) The excellent 24-90 SL lens. Yes, it is large. But the range is superb and the image quality leaves little to be desired. 

 

Ergonomically, the SL is now my favorite camera (including Sony A7RII, Panasonic GX8, and Canon 5DS among others). The SL 24-90 + the 16-18-21 WATE and M or R 135 or R180 make a great travel kit (plus a Summilux 35 or Nocti for evening shooting).

 

It would be even better, though, if Leica a) improved focus peaking and, way more importantly, B) fixed the well-documented SF58 flash-related bugs and/or released the 40 or 64 flashes.

 

The SL would be near perfect if it had support from Profoto or Quantum. I'd love to retire my Canon gear, but the fantastic support from Quantum, Profoto and other "system" flash/strobe vendors makes Canon way more attractive for dependable, high volume event shooting with flash. But for personal use, Leica has 'em beat from a pure user experience. And the files are gorgeous--as good as any prior Leica I've owned.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason 1: The SL specs were at least as good as the Sony A7Rii but in a much more usable package and with superb Leica glass.

Reason 2: I went into a Leica Store, picked up the demo model and, within a minute, I knew this had to be my next camera, replacing my Hasselblad H4D-50 with a much more portable system.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason 1: The SL is fast, solid and water resistant and with its 24-90mm zoom lens its like a swiss-knife for me: 90% of my work can be done with it at superb quality level. The sony A7rII is a realy very good camera, especially in test-labs, but can't beat the SL package in real live.

 

Reason 2: The possibility to use light and fast M glasses without any compromise, therefore it is the ideal supplement to my M9 (pictures look better than the ones of the M type 240, I never purchased).

Edited by saxo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet made my move to purchase the SL, but have made up my mind to purchase it soon.

Reason being it offers auto focus lenses and it is also designed to take M & R lenses.

The optical quality of Leica lenses is the main reason I stick to the brand.

The Noctilux and 21mm Summilux are two M lenses that is out of place on a rangefinder camera and in my mind, both rightfully belong to be used on the SL.

I would still love to keep my M240, using the OVF on 35mm Summilux lens for the romance of casual shooting.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1- ability to have perfect focus across all M lenses including Nocti 0.95. No more calibration required. EVF allows consistent focus with no need to check after the shot. EVF also allows to see exposure without checking.

 

 

Still haven't bought it, but this would be reason nr. 1 for me. This EVF is simply great. I was very skeptic about SL but after I had chance to play with it for a week, I was sold. The best camera I ever had a chance to play with. Pro build, pro-features, fast, responsive. Did I mention a fantastic EVF? :p

 

AF zoom is surprisingly good - I would say it is great. Autofocus is very fast and accurate.

Image quality fantastic.

 

What's not to like?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Perfect integration of M-Lenses

2. This EVF is the first almost perfect in the market - for me better than RF of the M (I wear glasses)

3. This was not the reason for the purchase (I even first bought only the body alone) but I learnt how good it is: The AF and speed with 24-90 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot another very important reason for me. As a travel photographer, who will often take over 2000 images on a trip, a GPS which actually works rather than the crippled GPS on the M240 (it was never very good, even before Leica ruined it with an misconceived FW update), will make life so much easier for me. No more looking through diaries and comparing with EXIF date to see exactly where an image was taken. 

 

Wilson

  • Like 4
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...