M owners: your 2 main reasons why you purchased SL

[helged]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Water sealed (my city got 3100,8 mm rain in 2015)

 

A working EVF

 

Excellent with R and M optics

 

Pleasant colour rendering OOC

 

Excellent zoom

 

Comfortable holding

[Likaleica]

Wildlife

R lenses

[Advertisement]

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

[Peter E]

For me it's the best camera all round tool to use.

 

After my M9, I've buyed the M-P240 and sold my M9 and my Nikon D800.

When I've tested the SL at my dealer, I've ordered one and sold my M.

Now I can shoot with Leica glass at 11fps or even in 4K and do studiowork a more easy way.

Studioflash is easier to manage together with evf for a correct framing and focus.

With the M it was a bit more difficult to make potraits at 1.4 with the 75lux or Nocti at f1, now it's easy

 

regards

Peter

Edited January 4, 2016 by Peter E

[Rick]

I'm surprised that image quality isn't mention much at all?

 

Rick

[wlaidlaw]

I'm surprised that image quality isn't mention much at all?

 

Rick

 

I suppose that is because it is pretty much the same as the M240 until you get into higher ISO's. Many of the SL owners on this forum, will also own an M240 or variants. 

 

Wilson

[MRJohn]

I'm surprised that image quality isn't mention much at all?

 

Rick

 

If you look at the separate thread on SL images it seems outstanding, I guess more accurate focusing and more conscious DOF (WYSIWYG) contributes to the overall image quality experience: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/253192-leica-sl-image-thread-post-your-examples-here/

[saxo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm surprised that image quality isn't mention much at all?

 

Rick

Image quality is better in terms of low light quality and colors.

 

But camera-quality is more than image quality in test environments, it is image quality in daily use. And there I can see multiple advantages of the SL compared to the M 240 and even to the highly recommended Sony a7r II. This is of course a personal opinion, depending on what you need the camera for.

[Vip]

1) I had found that is a much better EVF than on my M240 ( I use 16/21 and 90 macro) specially in Macro

2)No long lens on M . Uncompriensible as the visoflex now can overcome this limit

3) With one lens I have almost all my lens set so much faster

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I'm surprised that image quality isn't mention much at all?

 

Rick

 

 

For me that's because IQ in many camera is at a point of sufficiency, for me. I can pick up a Leica, Sony, Fujifilm or olympus body and I'm very confident that the image quality of all of them is up to the task. I do keep a Sony A7R2 for those rare times I need huge files with huge DR but a good modern 24MP sensor is the sweet spot for 90% of what I do and if IQ were the only factor in a camera I'd certainly be using something with the 50MP Sony MF sensor in it. The Sony A72 series sensor (24MP) might have a bit more DR but there's so much more to a camera than just the sensor. And in reality we're talking SMALL differences, even though many write as if sensor A is separated from Sensor B by the Grand Canyon. When I shoot interiors the difference between the Sony sensor and the Leica one is two clicks on my strobe controller. However there's a bigger difference in usability that means it's actually easier and faster to use the Leica (a better spirit level than the Sony, tilt EVF on the M or vastly better EVF on the SL).

 

One could go on about the superior Leica lenses (if there were a few more for the SL or even an S adaptor) but that's really a non issue as well. The WATE and anything over 50mm work just as well on the Sony and as far as I'm concerned lenses from Sony, Fujifilm, Zeiss, Olympus and even Canikon are wonderful in their own ways.

 

So for me, at least, image quality is no longer relevant in selecting a camera. It's all about usability and the "X" factor. For me the best camera doesn't meant the camera with the "best" sensor anymore.

 

Gordon

[jaapv]

Actually I could not think of two reasons that are valid for me - so I didn't switch...

[Leicaiste]

1) R lenses

 

2) M lenses

 

now it is more like :

 

1) M lenses

 

2) R lenses

[satijntje]

Solid my M240 an got the SL for:

1. using the 0.95 Noctilux

2. AF

 

John

[MRJohn]

Actually I could not think of two reasons that are valid for me - so I didn't switch...

 

Hm, not exactly answering the question but perhaps an idea for a new thread: M owners: you two main reasons why you will never purchase an SL 

 

Let me guess: lack of external accessory OVF, unpleasing design, ...

[leitztozeiss]

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.

Interestingly, this is where I find myself shifting with my SL and M246 combination. 246 with the 35lx asph, and the SL with the 21lx and 50lx (soon to be replaced with the Noct). I also just recently purchased the 24-90, as the image quality has overcome my initial hesitance.

[Visionhu]

1. M lens

2. Quality EVF

3. Wireless features

3. Tired of waiting for the new M

4. Somehow SL size fits my hand better

 

I'm still not sure if I'm going to keep the M – I love the classic look

[SeanJ]

Until recently I have worked with an M240 and an MP240 with a 21 Elmarit, a 28 Summilux and a 75 Summilux. I have also been working with a Canon 5d with a 24-70 2.8 which I use just for video.

Last week I traded in my M240 for the SL and am very pleased with it. The need to capture video at times was the primary reason but there are also other advantages, such as faster the frame rate, better low light, etc. It is also fantastic with the 75 Summilux which I use wide open mostly. Much easier to focus. I would recommend checking this incredible lens out with the SL.

I was intrigued to read that the 28 Summilux works so well with the SL on Sean Read's site. An additional benefit is the perspective through the viewfinder - which is not accurate through the M’s viewfinder. I have had the 28 Summilux for a few months now and as a result I am shooting a bit less on the 21 which I think is good for my photography. I think this lens is destined to become a classic.

I will use the MP240 with the 21 mostly (which is still pretty much my prime lens) and 28 and 75 mostly on the SL. Now I can do everything using just this equipment (with microphones, audio recorder and tripod for video) which is a huge benefit as my work involves constant traveling all over the world, often in very challenging conditions. I think this will prove to be a fantastic combination which I will put it to the test on my next assignment in ten days from now. I just wish Leica would hurry up with the audio interface adapter!

[solal]

Two main reasons for me :

 

1. With the 24-90, Zeiss Distagon 35mm 1.4 ZM and Voigtlander super wide Eliar 15mm 4.5 III (and later the 90-280), I will have everything to travel using the best (and I will stop to change my equipment every year !)

2. I come back to Leica (I had 2 M6 and 6 top M lenses) without sacrifying any kind of photography (macro, tele, zoom lens, autofocus, ...)

[sillbeers15]

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.

I have finally decided to purchase the SL + 24-90mm last evening,...expecting the stock to arrive in a week's time (according to Leica store in Singapore).

[talt03]

1. build quality of hardware and software that results to reliability and ease of use

2. capability in delivering stills and video in 1 complete package camera. This, for me, eliminated the need to bring an action camera, walkaround camera, and video camera.

 

As quoted from Gordon, I also believe that image quality can be achieved thru lens/camera combo from different brands. But what differs is the way that quality is delivered.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[david perry]

Bought the SL and 24-90 kit on Friday. I liked using the M without my spectacles, as that way I could see all around the frame without restriction. Gradually worsening eyesight meant that I had found focussing with the rangefinder on the M240 increasingly unreliable; sometimes I just couldn't get my eye to focus on the patch properly which meant I had to put on the Olympus EVF2 and use live view. Tried the 1.4 magnifier and that did not play well with the -3 dioptre. Tried the SL and it was a revelation. Even wearing my specs I can see the whole frame. The EVF is stellar and in all honesty I don't miss the OVF. I get to use my M lenses and have the benefit of AF, zoom and closer focus when needed. For me its win-win and I don't find the weight of the camera plus zoom an issue (and I have back trouble).

 

White balance, colour and dynamic range seem excellent and the SL is a pleasure to use.