Jump to content

M or SL ?


agencal

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Two weeks ago i have bought a SL with the Zoom lens.Zoom was too big fot my taste and i had focus shift issues with it.I have bought the SL system to sell my M-P 240.But didnt like the zoom.I could not sell the zoom alone to any one so i quickly sold the system without any loss.

Now i have my M-P 240 and lovin it with 50mm Apo and 21mm SEM but i really missed the SL body.Now i found SL body only somewhere but i am not sure if M240 and SL at the same time is a waste.

I love them both and like to own both but do you think is it waste of money to have both?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only you can decide. You say you love them both. If you can afford both, will use both then for me I would keep both. I have only had my SL a few days and I love it too but I also cherish my M240. I told the OH I would sell the M240 once I was sure I was satisfied the SL was for me - I told her that about my MM too though..... :ph34r:

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

For me, it would depend on the subject matter, the focal length I needed, etc..  For example, just walking around town with a 35mm lens I would take the M over the SL--not even close.  But trying to get images of my daughter's riding lessons?  Or taking pictures in a dark theater of my other daughter's upcoming Sound of Music performance?  Not even close.  The SL is the better tool for the job.  If I could only have one... I think I would pick the SL because it can use the lenses from my M when I want something compact and discrete--it's not THAT much bigger than an M when you put a small lens on it--and it still gives me the flexibility of an autofocus zoom when I need it.  I'd hate to have to make a choice, though.  That's why I kept my Nikon DSLR for so many years after I got the M.  There are just too many picture taking situations where the M doesn't work. Now, with the addition of the SL I'm finally in a place where I can let the Nikon kit go.

 

Which do I like better, though?  The M. 

 

I'm not a particularly talented photographer, but nothing improved my photography more than my initial change from Nikon DSLR's with zooms to a fixed focal length, manual focus M camera.  I was forced to control the image rather than let the camera do the work.  Since I had to choose the aperture, I actually THOUGHT about the best aperture.  Since I had to shoot at a fixed focal length, I actually THOUGHT about what focal length would be best for the picture I wanted, and where to position my camera.  Since the CCD was so poor at high ISO's, I was forced to improve my technique.  The limitations inherent in the system forced me to adapt.  Now I can't imagine parting with my M--except for another M.  It's still not a great tool for all photographic situations, but where it works it really shines.

 

- Jared

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Keep both, if you can.  Not for the zoom, not for autofocus, but for the way they complement each other in focal lengths handled, in shooting styles.  On any given day you may feel more like using one than the other, but it is nicest to have both available.

 

scott

It is true to have them both for different focal lenghts but when i thing focal lengths i have(21mm SEM +50mm Apo) wouldn't Lieca Q as a 28mm is a better complement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true to have them both for different focal lenghts but when i thing focal lengths i have(21mm SEM +50mm Apo) wouldn't Lieca Q as a 28mm is a better complement?

The Q's nice but probably in the not too distant future you will have more focal lengths than that...

 

scott

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahmed,

 

I'd say, the bottom line is lenses: if you prefer the smaller lenses of the M system, the M-P is just right (and I might say, the next M is supposed to be smaller than the current one). If, on the other hand, their size is not decisive and if you'd prefer zooms and/or telephoto lenses, you might want to look again at the SL.

 

I for one, decided to stay in the M camp. It satisfies all my photographic needs and, best of all, is a 100% manual system.

 

Kind regards, H.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two weeks ago i have bought a SL with the Zoom lens.Zoom was too big fot my taste and i had focus shift issues with it.I have bought the SL system to sell my M-P 240.But didnt like the zoom.I could not sell the zoom alone to any one so i quickly sold the system without any loss.

Now i have my M-P 240 and lovin it with 50mm Apo and 21mm SEM but i really missed the SL body.Now i found SL body only somewhere but i am not sure if M240 and SL at the same time is a waste.

I love them both and like to own both but do you think is it waste of money to have both?

Seeing that you are going to use the same lenses on both bodies what is the sense of owning both? Decide which you prefer, rangefinder/OVF or EVF and buy accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing that you are going to use the same lenses on both bodies what is the sense of owning both? Decide which you prefer, rangefinder/OVF or EVF and buy accordingly.

 

Indeed, no point to have both. I decided to go with the SL and sold the M 240 and very happy with the SL. The pros and cons are well documented by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two weeks ago i have bought a SL with the Zoom lens.Zoom was too big fot my taste and i had focus shift issues with it.I have bought the SL system to sell my M-P 240.But didnt like the zoom.I could not sell the zoom alone to any one so i quickly sold the system without any loss.

Now i have my M-P 240 and lovin it with 50mm Apo and 21mm SEM but i really missed the SL body.Now i found SL body only somewhere but i am not sure if M240 and SL at the same time is a waste.

I love them both and like to own both but do you think is it waste of money to have both?

 

If you dont shoot a lot in the 90-135 range and if you plan to use mainly M-lenses I wouldnt see a reason to use the Sl over the m type 240.

 

I also own both and the main reason for the SL is AF and fast shooting and the flexibiity of the 24-90. Even though I am not sure yet if a zoom is good for my photography. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been concentrating on using the SL for the past two months, my M-P has been sitting. During this time, I sent my favorite lens (the Summilux 35mm v2) off to DAG for cleaning and adding the six-bit code for auto-recognition. It arrived back on Wednesday evening, and I only had a moment during breakfast on Thursday to make a couple of shots with it. 

 

So this morning I picked up the M-P again, deciding to take it for my morning walk. It's a excellent camera, as always, and the Lux 35 v2 is always an absolute delight to shoot with. It's smaller and lighter than the SL, the kit of camera and 35/75 lenses is nicely more compact and easier to carry.

 

But ... I found myself missing the logical and fast handling of the SL, and it's ability to see exactly what I was framing in the viewfinder, and its ability to show me what the exposure I was using would produce. I prefer the feel and size of the SL body—more room for my hands, for my fingers; I can hold it steadier, the controls are in the right places, etc. 

 

And yet, when I fit the Lux 35 on the SL, it feels wrong. The lens isn't as balanced on the SL body—my Summicron-R 35mm is a much better fit and handles better on the SL, and likewise feels awkward and unbalanced when adapted to the M-P with R Adapter M and EVF. However, it doesn't render the same way the Lux 35 does. 

 

I have the SL's 24-90mm zoom lens too. I haven't used it much as yet, it's larger than I like to carry; I've only taken it out for one or two short shoots. The IS is very handy, the AF works well for me ... But I just don't use it much. I use R lenses on the SL 99% of the time. And I use my M lenses on the M-P. It's the right camera to use them on. 

 

It's nice that I can use either sets of lenses on both bodies. There are times when I know I want to be shooting with the SL, but I might want that Lux 35 along for its special rendering, or want to carry the tiny M-Rokkor 90 instead of the Summicron-R 90/2. There are times when I might want the light and handy M-P. So it makes sense for me to keep both. But they are not interchangeable. They imply different haptics, different uses, and different shooting methodologies. And different lenses. 

 

Whether you want or need both is completely your call. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I used my sl much more over my M. The main reason is my admission I am no that great a rf shooter given my pics exposure is always questionable. Also my rf focusing speed n skills are so-so...I have young kids...

 

With the sl. I have been able to shoot with much higher percentage of keepers simply because what you see in yr screen is what you get. So it makes metering and recomposing a breeze. The mf with focus peaking on both a 50apo and lux makes for very fast focus acquisition after much practive. Not slr fast of course but much after than m240 or even the Q. I am now very eager to try out the sl on leica 90 and 135mm lens, which previously was very tough to use due to small m240 framelines. Other perks include usable iso6400 and prettyyyyy good monochrome output. The customizable buttons are very good imo, and that greycard button makes customized white balance a breeze for indoor shoots. Its 2 steps faster than a nikon d4!

 

In short, am using the sl as an m240 for dummies, am absolutely not a fan of the 24-90 monstrosity, but heavily exploring the possibilites of finally shooting long leica mf lens with confidence. Good luck!

 

P/s- I want to also add I stopped reviewing my pics altogether every few shots due to that awesome evf

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

I do not see having both an SL and an M-P 240 as redundant; each has its strengths. 

 

If I could have only one, I would keep the M-P 240 and sell off the SL.  If it would not cause serious economic hardship, I say keep both. 

 

Autofocus is neither here nor there in my book, but ISO 50,000 capability is hard to argue with.  11 frames/second, two SD card slots are compelling features too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a m 240 and a m Monochrome. Thinking of replacing the M240 for a SL. SL and MM could be perfect combination. Best out both worlds. Can use my lenses on both gears.

 

I'm leaning toward doing the same thing. Just trying to figure out whether that's because the SL is the flavour of the month. Ive tried the SL and love it though. 

 

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you notice that the sl is not as sharp as the m with the same lens?

It is another discussion.Did you noticed that by your self?

I just tried 50mm apo at both cameras and only f2 M240 was a hair sharper bur from 2.8 to 8 sharper one was SL

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...