Considering switching from M-body to the SL

[StrawberryJam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just a nascent but still growing thought: should I dump my M8 and M240 in favor of the SL?

 

Presbyopia - my unwelcomed friend of aging - cheating me the joy of manual focusing. The cameras for the film medium that shows me the grace of camouflaging any misfocussing I intend to keep.

[BCMielke]

Just a nascent but still growing thought: should I dump my M8 and M240 in favor of the SL?

 

Presbyopia - my unwelcomed friend of aging - cheating me the joy of manual focusing. The cameras for the film medium that shows me the grace of camouflaging any misfocussing I intend to keep.

 

I can see why.  After owning the SL for just a short time, my M240 isn't seeing alot of love.  The rangefinder is more stealthy IMO, but for me since I am typically not a zone focuser the viewfinder of the SL can't be beat.

[Advertisement]

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

[steppenw0lf]

Hi.

I would never dump an M camera.

You could buy the SL and get the MM246 as a replacement for the M8 and M240. So you have the best of both worlds (color and b&w).

And you can use all lenses on both cameras (M, R, and SL or T if you plan to buy some). (of course SL and T only on SL and T cameras).

The SL is easy to use compared to the M240 because of the EVF with focus peeking and I also like the colors better (especially the red hues).

Stephan

 

The SL will not need any readjustments. But maybe your M cameras do, maybe you should have them checked.

The M lenses look and work best on the M (so I suggest the MM246). On the SL I like the R-lenses better.

[ramarren]

Just a nascent but still growing thought: should I dump my M8 and M240 in favor of the SL?

 

Presbyopia - my unwelcomed friend of aging - cheating me the joy of manual focusing. The cameras for the film medium that shows me the grace of camouflaging any misfocussing I intend to keep.

 

 

I have never had perfect vision. It's never bugged me, and I've never had any problem focusing either rangefinder or TTL viewing cameras. At 60+ now, my eyes aren't as good as they were 40 years ago, but I still haven't had any problems... 

 

That said, I see nothing wrong with having both the SL and the M-P typ 240. I had the M-P out the other day for some shooting and it remains a wonderful camera to work with. I use it mostly with 35, 50, and 75mm lenses nowadays, although I have a couple others as well. The SL is a very different camera in use and is ideal for use with my larger range of R lenses. Its TTL viewfinder gives it a versatility that no rangefinder can match. 

 

So the only real reason to sell off the M8 and M240 would be to help fund the purchase of the SL, if you want to go that way. That's a personal decision which depends upon your own desires and financial situation. 

[edwardkaraa]

I recently sold my M240 in favor of the SL. I could have kept the M but I am a one camera kind of photographer and I like to keep my gear simple and light. I think the M does have some advantages that I miss, like very fast manual focusing and the ability to see outside of the frame. Its thinner cover glass produces better results with some RF glass. On the other hand the SL super precise focusing, seeing exactly what's in the frame without parallax errors, ability to see in almost complete darkness, no worries about lenses or RF getting out of calibration far outweigh the drawbacks. So far I believe to have made the right decision.

[Guest JonathanP]

I've come very close to making the same decision. Whats holding me back is that I have no interest in AF or zooms, and what I really want is an EVF camera that is optimised for M rangefinder lenses. I'm somewhat worried that I might lose some performance on my existing lenses by making the switch. I would really love a M sized camera with EVF and no rangefinder (but I realise I might be made to walk to the plank round here for saying that). The main reason is presbyopia and I whilst I can still focus the rangefinder satisfactorily, I don't find it as easy as a nice EVF with diopter adjustment.

 

When I hear several people whose opinion I respect say that the best results for M lenses is on the M body, I'm reluctant to spend all that money selling my well calibrated M just to hope the SL results are satisfactory.

 

Jonathan 

[jcraf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've come very close to making the same decision. Whats holding me back is that I have no interest in AF or zooms, and what I really want is an EVF camera that is optimised for M rangefinder lenses. I'm somewhat worried that I might lose some performance on my existing lenses by making the switch. I would really love a M sized camera with EVF and no rangefinder (but I realise I might be made to walk to the plank round here for saying that). The main reason is presbyopia and I whilst I can still focus the rangefinder satisfactorily, I don't find it as easy as a nice EVF with diopter adjustment.

 

When I hear several people whose opinion I respect say that the best results for M lenses is on the M body, I'm reluctant to spend all that money selling my well calibrated M just to hope the SL results are satisfactory.

 

Jonathan 

HI Jonathan

 

After some initial doubts I recently acquired an SL after years of shooting M cameras, latterly including the 240-series and 246 Monochrom; they have now gone. I still have an M9-P but it's not used much, and a couple of film Ms; and don't get me wrong I still love the M cameras.

 

But I am enjoying the SL very much with my M lenses and I find that the results are as good as those which my modest capabilities (and eyesight) can wring from any digital M.  Last weekend I used mine with the latest incarnation of one of my favourite lenses, Version 2 of the 28 Elmarit-M Asph, and I was very pleased indeed with the results.

 

I love the concept of the SL, although I doubt I'll succumb to either of the bazooka zooms just yet.  But the option is there. I also love the flexibility of not being dependant on any external VFs, electronic or otherwise, for certain focal lengths.  And using my Tele-Elmar 135 is a breeze even for older eyes.  The EVF is truly sensational.

And with a Novoflex LETNIK adapter I can use some of my venerable old Nikon MF glass too. The possibilities are manifold in that respect.

 

And the GPS capability....and ....and....etc....etc.

 

So it's kind of a one stop shop.  Useable for many kinds of work in a way that the M is not (I'll also be walking the plank with you for that one).

 

Of course, one could go down the Sony A7 path, and I can fully understand why some folks do that. But the SL is truly great product, with the quality we all expect.....and we like Leicas here, don't we!!

[edwardkaraa]

I've come very close to making the same decision. Whats holding me back is that I have no interest in AF or zooms, and what I really want is an EVF camera that is optimised for M rangefinder lenses. I'm somewhat worried that I might lose some performance on my existing lenses by making the switch. I would really love a M sized camera with EVF and no rangefinder (but I realise I might be made to walk to the plank round here for saying that). The main reason is presbyopia and I whilst I can still focus the rangefinder satisfactorily, I don't find it as easy as a nice EVF with diopter adjustment.

 

When I hear several people whose opinion I respect say that the best results for M lenses is on the M body, I'm reluctant to spend all that money selling my well calibrated M just to hope the SL results are satisfactory.

 

Jonathan

All the signs are pointing at a thicker cover glass in the next M iteration. So unless one intends to use the M240 indefinitely, future bodies will not be better with RF lenses than the SL.

[Guest JonathanP]

Thanks John and Edward. There's a lot to like about the SL and I think it could also be a great alt glass platform with the small register distance and EVF. But need to be sure that my 35FLE is still great   John.

 

Jonathan 

[steppenw0lf]

Thanks John and Edward. There's a lot to like about the SL and I think it could also be a great alt glass platform with the small register distance and EVF. But need to be sure that my 35FLE is still great   John.

 

Jonathan 

 

Jonathan.

 

Not that it matters, but I prefer the R-lenses on the SL, but I find the results with M-lenses also very satisfactory. (Have no FLE, but the older Aspherical)

Check the Reid Reviews site and you will find the scientific proof for this (much more objective than anything we could tell you here).

If you want to worry, then you could worry about the 2.8/28 Asph. version 1. The new 2.8/28 Asph seems to be better suited for the SL. That makes people think that this is the future direction of M sensors.

 

Stephan

Edited March 29, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[jcraf]

Thanks John and Edward. There's a lot to like about the SL and I think it could also be a great alt glass platform with the small register distance and EVF. But need to be sure that my 35FLE is still great   John.

 

Jonathan 

 

Well, your example is so good that I recently bought another one; great on the SL 

[jcraf]

 

If you want to worry, then you could worry about the 2.8/28 Asph. version 1. The new 2.8/28 Asph seems to be better suited for the SL. That makes people think that this is the future direction of M sensors.

 

Stephan

 

Stephan

 

That's interesting. I wondered if the optical formula had been changed in v2 to better suit the requirements of the SL sensor, or indeed any future M camera sensor. It certainly performs very well indeed on the SL but that is of course my subjective observation. 

 

Regards

[otto.f]

If aging is your argument to switch, then I give you the weight of the SL in consideration, including its lenses which give you the real AF convenience. Arthrosis is also something that comes with age and heavy camerabags are severe suspects of bringing that up (in my case). And tremor can come up too, so image stabilization might also be a wish at some time. 

Edited March 29, 2016 by otto.f

[david perry]

I traded in my beloved M240 and 35FLE to fund the switch to the SL plus 24-90 because of increasingly frequent issues trying to get the rangefinder patch in crisp focus with my right eye - and there was no way I could afford to switch without letting the summilux go.   In truth since buying the 50apo a year ago the 35 had been neglected.  The SL is a revelation; it is so easy to use and in the hand imparts as much joy when transferring artistic vision to an SD card as did the M240. I honestly don't notice that I am looking through an EVF and I really appreciate the WYSIWYG precision of framing and exposure.  Results with the zoom are superb too and thus far the SL does not share the M's appetite for dust on the sensor. The best part is that whenever I want I can simply leave the zoom at home and venture out with my M glass (21 super elmar, 50apo, 90 apo cron) and have just as much pleasure as I did with my M with images that are every bit as good, if not better. Kudos to Leica. Either outfit will fit easily in my ONA Berlin, weigh about the same and are easy to carry all day.

[helged]

I also sold the M240 after playing a little with the SL. Initially I was concerned about the increased weight and size of the SL, but it turned out that these differences are rather small. Furthermore, the SL feels much more convenient in the hand with larger lenses mounted (28LuxM, 50NoctM, 75LuxM, 90CronM, larger R-lenses, etc.) compared to the M-bodies. And if you add grips to the M, you more or less has the SL. The SL EVF works as a dream, and the moveable focus point is very welcome. The optical view finder of the M is different and has it's advantages, of course, but the SL is a (very) fine machine indeed. In addition comes a sensor with rather realistic colour rendering and quite good dynamic range and low light characteristics, plus long and short (1/8000) exposure time and lot's of options that can be fully ignored or actively used by 6 programable buttons.

[sillbeers15]

I have sold my M9 for M240 3years ago and no looking back.

However I'm keeping my M240 with the compact M lenses and moved my 21lux & 50Noc to be used on my SL together with the 24-90 AF,...waiting to add more AF lenses in time.

I'm keeping my M240 purely for my romance with RF.

[Peter H]

To the OP, since the issue is that, sadly, manual focussing has become very difficult for you, I suggest that you must try out the SL yourself to discover whether you can focus manually with it.

 

If imanual focus is still too difficult, then you must try out and consider the SL lens and see whether you find the size/weight combination pleasant to use.

 

It should then be a very easy decision for you. The imaging performance of the M v SL lenses is hardly relevant in your situation, and doesn't appear to be much of an issue anyway.

[StrawberryJam]

I never imagined this much feedback from this community. All of you have some very good points that I will explore further, you almost make it easy to make the switch. Dangerously so. Haha. Thank you all!

 

Next step

[Jared]

I purchased my SL in December after having used M's for several years.  Here is what I found:

 

- The SL is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the M, especially with the 24-90, of course

- The 24-90 is a great lens, and in situations where you need autofocus it opens up new worlds that simply weren't available to M shooters

- I don't actually like zoom lenses because I get lazy almost whenever I use them.  However, they have their uses, so I am pleased with the additional flexibility

- All the M lenses I currently own work just as well on the SL as they ever did on the M.  At least, close enough that I can't tell a difference.  This includes:

     16/18/21mm Tri-Elmar

     35mm Summilux FLE

     50mm APO Summicron

     75mm APO Summicron

     90mm Macro Elmar

     180mm APO Telyt (R lens, not M)

I can't speak to other M lenses.  I believe that some of the wide angles are less sharp in the corners on the SL than they are on the M.  Leica appears to be updating their lenses to be more tele centric so this M advantage will likely disappear over time, but if you have a favorite lens you would want to check

- I still prefer the M over the SL when shooting at either 28mm or 35mm focal lengths.  If you are a street shooter primarily, I would think long and hard before getting rid of your M

- The SL is much better than the M at focal lengths above 50mm; not even close.  The EVF just makes a huge difference in the number of keepers, at least for me

 

Overall, the SL is a much better rounded camera.  The weather sealing, the GPS, the availability of AF and zooms, the speed, the image stabilization (zooms only), etc.  can make a huge difference in your photography depending on your particular type of photography.  However, there are penalties as well, particularly in size and weight.  Also, some people just really prefer OVF's/rangefinders no matter how good the EVF gets.

 

My solution was simple.  I traded my M(240) for a Leica Q.  I think the Q is actually the better street camera/carry around camera, so I still have a light and subtle camera for walking about, and I have all the advantages of the SL when they are needed.  Plus, the sensors on the two cameras are nearly the same, so I don't need to change my workflow at all.  Best of both worlds for me, but other photographers will have other needs.

 

- Jared

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[scott kirkpatrick]

I think I put down some preliminary conclusions a few months ago.  They haven't changed too much.  I might deaccession one M240 body, but will keep the other.  I'm finding the SL is just great for very wide (21, 18, 15mm) and longer (80 to 280 mm R) lenses, but heavier and slower in action than the M240 with the 21, 28, 35, 50 mm focal lengths.  And I find I focus fastest and most accurately with a rangefinder at shorter focal lengths.  

 

The 50's are such a powerful tool for creating a picture with care that they seem a natural fit with both bodies.  I think of the current SX 50 as the artistic brush, that belongs on the SL, and the APO SC 50 as a research instrument, that will probably end up more often on an M.  The Q might be nice, but when I want to work with something simple I can use a GR at 28 mm-eff or a Fuji X-Pro2, for which I have only the 35 mm-eff lens.  The Leica SL-FLE 35 blows it away when wide open, but on a nice day, the Fuji is effortless to shoot with its optical finder and takes great pictures at f/4 or 5.6.  For events and large family parties, where zooms and autofocus really pay off, I use Olympus.

 

Just to be contrarian, here are some OOC JPEGs (don't have Capture One support yet) from my "new Q":

 

DSCF0073 1 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

DSCF0178 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

DSCF0212 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

Scott