Can a Leica SL replace an M system?

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me the biggest reason to use the SL is the 24-90, just a very very flexible lens/focal length.

I agree with others that the user experience is good in one way (solid and clear UI) but on the other side its allready full with functions and for really fast action I have not yet found the one correct AF setting. Switching between C-AF and S-AF, between face detection and field, between static and dynamic.

 

The M on the other side feels more simple to me, but I do get besser focusing result with the SL or the T.

 

 

[Guest VVJ]

The versatility but also the optical quality of the 24-90 is great.  It feels like having 4-6 primes.

 

Besides that I will most likely also get the 90-280 at some point (no hurry), a very fast prime in the 50-90mm range (perhaps already the upcoming 50mm) and hopefully at some point in time Leica will also release  a more pancake like 28mm walk around lens.

 

I could easily get by without an M.  That being said, that doesn't mean that I will sell it.  I haven't made up my mind yet.

Edited June 24, 2016 by JorisV

[Advertisement]

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

[steppenw0lf]

Unfortunately it is exactly the 24-90 that shows the limits of the SL for me. AF would be nice, but not at the price of this monster lens. Even though it is superior in IQ, I prefer the older R or Contax lenses as "walkaround" zooms.

So especially for street shooting the SL is no perfect replacement for the M.

Maybe later with a less ambitious and more compact 28-75 zoom with aperture 3.4 or 4. But it is unlikely this will ever happen.

 

I hope a lot of people do what they are telling all the time - sell their old M240. Most seem just to be waiting for a new M. Then prices will dramatically drop and I can easily buy a second-hand M dedicated to street photography. 

Edited June 24, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Guest VVJ]

I believe over time it is inevitable that Leica will produce lighter (and slower) lenses as well, certainly primes.

 

Also Fuji is going in that direction right now but obviously their native X lens line-up is already more complete...

 

Till that moment, I will keep the Leica Q or the Leica T with zoom handy.

Edited June 24, 2016 by JorisV

[edwardkaraa]

I think the SL is fantastic for whatever the M can't do well

[ramarren]

Hi ramarren,

Have you used summarit 75 with your SL? I am planning to buy either a 90mm or 75mm summarit for my SL. 

Thanks.

 

 

Just a little bit: It works very nicely.

I tend to use the Summicron-R 90mm f/2 with the SL more, however; just a personal preference. 

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm talking strictly from the M user perspective, with adapted M lenses.

 

The M is a much more enjoyable camera to use, and is much faster for focusing M lenses, except for the few situations where an EVF is needed, in which clearly the SL is better.

 

 

That the M is a "much more enjoyable camera to use" is a purely personal thing. I'm an M user too. I don't find either camera "more enjoyable to use" than the other; I like using them both. They work differently. ?? 

 

"... and is much faster for focusing M lenses, except for the few situations where an EVF is needed, in which clearly the SL is better" is another somewhat personal but mostly ambiguous statement. For what situations when you're focusing M lenses is it the case that an EVF is needed? 

 

I generally don't use M lenses on the SL very much. Most are small and designed for a differently shaped body, the slim, tabbed focusing rings for the shorter focal lengths are not very well positioned for how you hold or operate an SL. R lenses, on the other hand, fit the SL very well and are easier to use—the SL is more similar to the SLR bodies they were designed for. 

 

Focusing speed... It's hard to evaluate focusing speed between two camera types and two different users. I personally find the SL's TTL viewing faster and easier to focus in nearly all circumstances. There are some exceptions ... for instance, I find the WATE faster to focus on the M, but I find it much more accurately focused with the SL. The SL24-90 focuses manually both extremely quickly and extremely accurately on the SL too. 

 

We could debate this ad nauseam, but I think the bottom line is that you prefer the M and like the SL only for things that the M isn't really very good at. I like both cameras quite a lot, but I tend to prefer the SL overall because I prefer its focusing system and the TTL viewing. This fits with my long-term use of the Ms: they have always been good complements to my SLR cameras, but could never entirely replace them. 

 

Like others, I find the SL24-90 an excellent performer, but I also found it overly bulky and heavy, particularly when it first arrived. The R lenses, while nowhere near as small or light as the M lenses, suit me better also because I use only R prime lenses. All that said, I've come to regard the SL24-90 very highly for its performance and have become more accustomed to its size and weight over time. I have no trouble making photographs of people with it, on the street or wherever. I don't use it so much, however, simply because I generally am not as comfortable using zoom lenses as primes.

Edited June 24, 2016 by ramarren

[Leicaiste]

I'm talking strictly from the M user perspective, with adapted M lenses.

 

The M is a much more enjoyable camera to use, and is much faster for focusing M lenses, except for the few situations where an EVF is needed, in which clearly the SL is better.

 

 

 

Not my experience at all.

[edwardkaraa]

We will have to agree to disagree then

[mbc 1944]

I liked your write-up. I can't agree on all points, but everybody is different. Let me offer a few thoughts:

 

1. The M or something pretty much like it is irreplaceable. By this I mean a walk-about camera, relatively inconspicuous and non-threatening, with a Leica quality 35 mm lens.

 

2. I'd love autofocus. The SL is dead-on and quick. I'm buying the Q to have a Leica walk-about camera you can take around. I tried the T but found the autofocus is not always dependable.

 

3. SL images are sensational, loaded with detail I do not see in M camera ones. I refer to images made with the SL lens. Images can be cropped a lot without loss of detail. But to me the images have a machine-like quality. M camera images have more warmth and humanity. (Opinion, not "fact")

 

4. For all it's virtues, the SL is more of a studio or special purpose camera. It's too heavy. It's too conspicuous. It calls attention to itself-- the big "Leica" emblem is the opposite of the M's stealth. But the SL has great strengths: brilliant viewfinder (better for most purposes than the M's; nicer shutter feel and sound than the one on my MP 240; best all-purpose lens (20-90 zoom;)

[mbc 1944]

Oops, not done.

 

5. I continue to be discouraged by the increasing complexity of Leica (top line) cameras, excepting the new and commendable 262 MD. Even with expert help in setting up my SL, I still am apprehensive every time I open the menus. I don't need all that information! Please, make an "easy" version of your cameras.

 

Michael

[Guest VVJ]

A M262 with the sensor of the SL would probably please a lot of people...

Edited June 24, 2016 by JorisV

[edwardkaraa]

A M262 with the sensor of the SL would probably please a lot of people...

A M240 with SL sensor and EVF would please even more people

[Jeff S]

A M240 with SL sensor and EVF would please even more people

 

You mean with an add-on EVF with SL quality?  If built-in, you've just described the SL.

 

Jeff

[edwardkaraa]

You mean with an add-on EVF with SL quality? If built-in, you've just described the SL.

 

Jeff

Yep, I meant with an add-on EVF that has similar resolution and refresh rates to the one in the SL.

[MVCG]

You mean with an add-on EVF with SL quality?  If built-in, you've just described the SL.

 

Jeff

 

 

The M form factor and manual focus is a very different camera to the SL. I do love the SL + 24-90 but I would definitely prefer an M6 size body with an EVF...

[MVCG]

built in EVF or preferably some form of Hybrid EVF + OVF... 

[ski542002]

I'm talking strictly from the M user perspective, with adapted M lenses.

 

The M is a much more enjoyable camera to use, and is much faster for focusing M lenses, except for the few situations where an EVF is needed, in which clearly the SL is better.

 

Hello:  When I shot with the M240, I was quite accurate even with moving subjects, but not as quick as I wanted.  With the SL, I'm faster to focus the M-lenses, and a lot more accurate even without screen magnification. I didn't find the M more enjoyable to use, but simpler; less buttons.  Once I confiured the SL, it's experience is getting closer to the M. I think it's a matter of one's comfort level for a given system.

[ski542002]

I'm talking strictly from the M user perspective, with adapted M lenses.

 

The M is a much more enjoyable camera to use, and is much faster for focusing M lenses, except for the few situations where an EVF is needed, in which clearly the SL is better.

 

Hello:  When I shot with the M240, I was quite accurate even with moving subjects, but not as quick as I wanted.  With the SL, I'm faster to focus the M-lenses, and thanks to the great EVF, a lot more accurate even without screen magnification. I didn't find the M more enjoyable to use, but simpler; less buttons.  Once I confiured the SL, it's experience is getting closer to the simpliccity of the M. I think it's a matter of one's comfort level for a given system.  I will say, that I enjoy shooting the M lenses so much, I might never plan to get any of the native SL lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[MVCG]

Hi Benutzer, I would suggest you'd be missing out on the Vario-Elmarit 24-90 (not having tried the 90-280 myself)... It's a seriously brilliant zoom implementation. Would have been nice if Leica would have put the OIS mechanism in the camera as opposed to the lenses though. The lenses would be cheaper to manufacture AND it would have allowed the SL to stabilise any M lens which would have made it a ridiculous proposition for low light photography.