SL or M for a Q lover...?

[SonomaBear]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Leica Q has convinced me that Leica lenses and ergonomics are the finest. I still have FF Canon and L glass but I'm a manual sort of photographer.

I used a 240 with several lenses and found my new partner EXCEPT my 70 year old eyes found optical RF to be difficult compared to manual focus on Q's internal EVF.

I have not used the SL but understand that it's EVF is equally wonderful.

Question: is the SL as small, agile, and ergonomic as the M and Q?

My goal is a M camera with SL viewfinder.

[steppenw0lf]

You have probably studied the marketing brochures and the websites. So you know the answer.  (No)

So you wish that Leica announces a M with the capabilities of the SL. Understood.

 

Simply buy a Sony if size is so important for you.

For me it is more important to use the Leica glass with a Leica sensor, so I use what is there - the SL.

I still have a Sony NEX-7 but do not particularly like its small size.

 

Simply go and use/try the SL. No time to waste. Either you like it or or not.

And if not, then there are many other options.

 

 

P.S.: Yes, the EVF is great. But if you use AF it does not really matter. The difference is very clear if you use Leica (R or M) or foreign lenses manually. So you really need to give it a try.

I have a 5Ds and immediately saw the difference when doing macro shots. (Had 50 MP and went back to 24 MP because the results were better).

[meerec]

The Leica Q has convinced me that Leica lenses and ergonomics are the finest. I still have FF Canon and L glass but I'm a manual sort of photographer.

I used a 240 with several lenses and found my new partner EXCEPT my 70 year old eyes found optical RF to be difficult compared to manual focus on Q's internal EVF.

I have not used the SL but understand that it's EVF is equally wonderful.

Question: is the SL as small, agile, and ergonomic as the M and Q?

My goal is a M camera with SL viewfinder.

I don't own Q but my good friend does and I often shoot with that Q so I do have a point of reference.

SL is a bit larger and a bit heavier but ergonomics with the M lenses are fabulous. It's like Q on steroids. I shot with SL exclusively now.

You'll appreciate the EVF a lot. Go SL !!

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The SL is bigger and heavier than the M. If you added the MF grip (GPS, bigger grip and tethering) and EVF they're about the same size and weight. While the SL is smaller I find it as agile and more ergonomic than the M, personally.

 

I love my M but honestly I hardly use it now I have the SL. Manual focus with the SL is a breeze. The EVF is better again than the Q. The lower available ISO's are great with fast glass. And you have the later option of adding the very very good SL zooms, although you'll be back to L glass sizes with those. With the zooms and upcoming AF primes the SL is like a DSLR system. With M manual focus lenses it's a small agile system. Kind of a split personality. But in a good way.

 

Plus depending on your Canon glass, some of it will work really well on the SL with the Novoflex AF adaptor. (longer lenses, slower lenses tend to be more hit and miss AF wise) So you *may* get some added benefit there as well.

 

Gordon

[SonomaBear]

Thank you folks.  I didn't realize the small size of the SL body.  Much like my 6D body, small and agile... but noms are large and primes are better IMHO.

So I'll budget for a SL body with M adapter and Canon EF adapter for my canon primes.  If I need a zoom, the 6D will be great.

Then I'll start selling all the old Rolleiflex cameras and rare accessories to start collecting M glass!

Thanks again!

Henry

[Peter H]

I strongly suggest trying the SL and not judging it by dimensions alone.

 

I keep trying it again because on paper it is compelling and the photos from it can be very attractive, but I just find it very uncomfortable to use. Some love it and some don't, so please, get it in your hands and use it before deciding.

 

And think very hard indeed before selling your Rolleiflexes!

[vhfreund]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me Leica is an attitude rather than a toy with all the bells and whistles. Accordingly I would always prefer the M !!!

[vhfreund]

Sometimes less is more!

[CYBORA]

I am in your situation. Having been using Q for more than a year, love it and purchased an M 262 on May for my M lenses.

 

I tried the SL on Saturday with my 35 Summilux FLE and guess what , I put Q and M on sale  

 

ps : I will use my M lenses with SL.

[HeinzX]

I liked my M 240 with the small lenses, which has the original DNS of Leica in it. But having

problems with my eyes - even with the additonal EVF, I decided to sell it and did the same with my

Canon 5 D III (but kept some special lenses) and bought a SL together with the 24/90 and a Novoflex

adapter. And I am very happy with this solution - even if the outcome is heavier.

[jaapv]

So it all comes down to which part of the Q experience you like most

[thighslapper]

The SL is a very good M240 replacement ........

 

The SL is not a good Q replacement in my opinion.

 

The two cameras (SL & Q) complement each other very well and I would strongly urge you NOT to dispose of the Q .... it is one of Leicas very best cameras produced in the last 10 years - you will miss it.

 

I've had most digitals produced by Leica in the last 10 years (except the S) and the SL and Q are by far the best combination of image quality, ergonomics and ease of use.

[geetee1972]

In response to the suggestion of considering the Sony A7 series if you want small and light, you should keep in mind that the Sony is materially harder to manually focus than the SL. I am 44 and my eyes are still pretty good but I really struggled to get critical focus at large apertures even on the Sony A7rII, which has a much better EVF than the earlier models. The focus peaking is vague at best and in many cases just not acurate and the clarity of the magnified image is just not good enough to see critical focus.

 

In contrast, the SL's EVF is a joy and so bright and clear that I don't even use focus peaking. I do use the magnified view but it's so good I can focus very quickly and acurately with it even at f/1.4.

 

The SL with an M lens is still relatively compact but fairly heavy, certainly compared to the M240 or a Sony A7 with an M lens. That said, I love the weight of it; it feels reassuringly solid.

 

As others have said the best thing to do is try an SL out, perhaps you can rent one?

[albertknappmd]

The SL and M lenses are fantastic!

Again, TRY BEFORE YOU BUY!!

You will not be disappointed!

Albert     

[SonomaBear]

I guess that it is time to try the SL for a day, probably with the 24-90.  Hopefully the dealer will also have a Canon and a M adapter for my to borrow.

Then I'll sell a few guitars to buy it for my own holiday gift!

[ramarren]

For me, the SL's EVF is second to none (and I've used most of the EVF cameras on the market as well as 'not a few' DSLRs). It became my #1 camera to reach for within a week of having acquired it in Nov 2015. The SL body is only a bit larger and heavier than the M-P or M-D bodies, and is more ergonomic for many uses. 

 

That said, I still have and use the M. However, I've switched to the M-D model almost exclusively and use it with the 35mm and 75mm lenses most of the time. It provides an utterly simple, raw photographic workflow such as that I'm used to from the decades between 1965 and when I bought my first decent digital camera in 2002. There's value in that for me as well. 

[tom0511]

I own both and for M lenses I prefer the M with rangefinder over the SL.

 

If eyes are not that great I would rather use an AF-camera/AF-lens.

 

If the SL +2490 is  is too big I would recommend the T with native AF lenses. Most underrated camera in the Leica line up IMO.

[thighslapper]

 

 

If the SL +2490 is  is too big I would recommend the T with native AF lenses. Most underrated camera in the Leica line up IMO.

 I agree about the T ....... both lenses and sensor produce super images ....... but the EVF is a bit pedestrian, AF and usage slow by SL standards, and the touch screen is a bit fiddly.

 

There are some cameras you naturally 'gel' with and others you don't ....... and the T was in the latter group. Still have it and use it ...... but despite the weight/size I reach for the SL every time .....