ramarren Posted November 28, 2016 Share #21 Posted November 28, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Can you please tell a bit more about which part of SL is actually better than the M-P ? Besides the EVf which I have awared , what about focus peaking? Is it also better than M-P? And elsewhere? I was buying the SL to give a try of " new and different , mainly because of the AF , but so far haven't feel this AF is that great ... so still learning and try to find something special about the SL Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I shoot the SL and M-P. SL is better built, has weather sealing, better handling with larger lenses with a better grip, better DR and noise at higher ISO, better focus peaking, better with wide lenses due to the high quality EVF, better buffer, better with long exposures, allows access to the SD cards and battery without removing a bottom plate, shoots dual cards, has AF, allows joystick control of manual focus zoom with M lenses, has built in GPS, etc etc. The only advantages the M-P offers for me are the smaller size with M lenses, the discreet appearance, auto zoom with manual focus lenses in LV, and the rangefinder shooting experience. additional ... The SL is easier to hold, easier to steady, and has a quieter shutter. From my personal experience, once I had the SL, I stopped using the M-P. The SL is simply an easier camera to use for most situations. I realized that a good bit of it was the simple matter that the SL body gives me more gripping surface and is easier to hold, and that the big LCD and control buttons festooning the M-P were an issue for me. I bought an M-D and am much happier with that for using my M lenses; the reason I continue to use an M are the lenses that fit that camera a bit better than they fit the SL. The M and the SL complement each other very nicely and produce very similar image quality; both are outstanding. Pick whichever one suits your handling needs and lenses best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 Hi ramarren, Take a look here SL - Leica Primes or Autofocus?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
MT0227 Posted November 30, 2016 Share #22 Posted November 30, 2016 The decision for me was the EVF, and is what makes the SL special. Both the M-P240/SL EVFs have focus peaking and zoom features. The SL EVF is remarkable and gives me a much more of an enhanced tool shooting in low light, wide apertures and or scenes which require a shallow DOF. The SLs 10x zoom and focus peaking allows you to focus at hairline DOFs...what you see in the EVF is exactly what you get. It's quick, visually superior and significantly more usable than the M-P240 EVF. Purchased new, the SL with the M adapter is about $450 more than the M-P with the added EVF2. If one has a collection of M lenses, can sacrifice a little size and give up using a rangefinder....the SL is a no brainer between the two in my view given the current pricing environment. Can you please tell a bit more about which part of SL is actually better than the M-P ? Besides the EVf which I have awared , what about focus peaking? Is it also better than M-P? And elsewhere? I was buying the SL to give a try of " new and different , mainly because of the AF , but so far haven't feel this AF is that great ... so still learning and try to find something special about the SLSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MT0227 Posted November 30, 2016 Share #23 Posted November 30, 2016 Totally agree here....after shooting my M6 + Nocti f/1... I feel like I'm cheating when I switch over to the SL. Maybe you could also say the difference is WYSIWYG. Very nice for a demanding lens like the Noctilux. Generally very good if you like total control of your image. (Polaroid on steroids). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobers Posted November 30, 2016 Share #24 Posted November 30, 2016 The 24-90 zoom may be the same weight as a 24,50,90 M prime combo, but what you gain in convenience of one lens you lose in max aperture. If you don't need f/1.4 or f/2 then the zoom may be the better bet. Having had a good play with an SL and M primes, the user experience is very good and the immediate focus zoom on pressing the joystick works really well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted November 30, 2016 Share #25 Posted November 30, 2016 Isn't this just the same dilemma as all DSLR-type photographers face? Some go the zoom route and some the prime. Sometimes it's a equation of $$, or weight, or handling or lens performance, how easy it is to use, but there are other factors. Because in the end, isn't it really a question of the type of photography you do, or rather, the type of photographer you are ? In other words why are you taking photos in the first place? This seems to me always to be the most important question a photographer can ask. If you can answer that, the choice of lens might more often be a natural consequence and not a difficult decision at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MT0227 Posted November 30, 2016 Share #26 Posted November 30, 2016 I agree Peter, and more or less have tried to state the same. What's convenient for some, may not be for others. Isn't this just the same dilemma as all DSLR-type photographers face? Some go the zoom route and some the prime. Sometimes it's a equation of $$, or weight, or handling or lens performance, how easy it is to use, but there are other factors. Because in the end, isn't it really a question of the type of photography you do, or rather, the type of photographer you are ? In other words why are you taking photos in the first place? This seems to me always to be the most important question a photographer can ask. If you can answer that, the choice of lens might more often be a natural consequence and not a difficult decision at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 30, 2016 Share #27 Posted November 30, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Isn't this just the same dilemma as all DSLR-type photographers face? Some go the zoom route and some the prime. Sometimes it's a equation of $$, or weight, or handling or lens performance, how easy it is to use, but there are other factors. Because in the end, isn't it really a question of the type of photography you do, or rather, the type of photographer you are ? In other words why are you taking photos in the first place? This seems to me always to be the most important question a photographer can ask. If you can answer that, the choice of lens might more often be a natural consequence and not a difficult decision at all. Perhaps. Certainly, there are considerable benefits in using the two native SL zooms - weather sealing, AF and image quality being the main ones, I guess. If you're by nature a prime shooter (which I would say that I am) then there are a multitude of choices, using adapters. I've never had an AF prime, so I can't really comment on the benefit - I've always battled AF, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask. What I can say, though, is to endorse what MT0227 says above about the use of M primes on the SL. I have a number of what people consider to be large M mount glass - 15 Distagon, 21 Summilux, Noctilux, 75 Summilux and 90 Summicron. These are fabulous lenses, and they are tiny by comparison with any other manufacturer; they also perform very well on the SL (along with the 28 Summilux); in many cases, better than on an M camera. I see no point in my buying any SL mount prime for that reason. Similarly, much of the time I see no benefit in using these M lenses on my M cameras, unless I want the relatively more compact M camera, but even then I'm not so sure - lenses wider than 28mm don't show the full frame without a viewfinder, and the frame lines for the 75 & 90 are rather diminutive. The SL is just a better camera for those lenses, and it isn't that much bigger than an M camera with EVF and grip etc. The result is that my M cameras tend to have the 35 Summilux (matched to the M60), 50 Summilux (Monochrom), 50 Summitar (M3) and 28 Summilux (M-A), or variations of this. I'm finding the 15 Distagon (red edge) and Noctilux (purple fringing) perform better on the SL than the M cameras, and the 21 & 75 Summilux and 90 Summicron ergonomically and functionally better on the SL. I suspect that also reflects the limitations of the optical rangefinder - best with 28-35-50 Not sure about the dSLR reference - why does that come into it? You can use zooms on the SL or the M (with EVF). Back in the days I used SLRs, the determining issue for the choice of zoom or prime was size or image quality. I would typically carry a 180mm prime, mid-range zoom (which I hated) and a wide AF zoom (which I tended to shoot at the wide end, anyway). I realised that my preferred focal lengths were moderate tele (180mm) or wide (14-20mm). It was only when I got an M9 that I discovered the joys of 50mm (or 75/90 - they're pretty close) and 28mm (not so keen on 35mm - for reasons I don't understand). Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MT0227 Posted November 30, 2016 Share #28 Posted November 30, 2016 If I'm going to shoot street, I'd only bring the 24 and 90 or go solely with the 50...I have options. I'll have wider apertures at my disposal and flexibility to always carry less weight if I choose. If your shoot is well planned, you should know what tools to bring to job...which shouldn't have to be every tool in your toolbox. I prefer not to carry the weight of the whole toolbox in one lens (zoom) and just carry what I need for the job (primes). All this sums to what is more convenient for me. With respect to Leica1215's question, why the SL vs M. I'd also echo John's comments above. Aside from the EVF which makes the SL a more powerful tool in my view, a lot has to do with the collection of M lenses in your arsenal. The 24-90 zoom may be the same weight as a 24,50,90 M prime combo, but what you gain in convenience of one lens you lose in max aperture. If you don't need f/1.4 or f/2 then the zoom may be the better bet.Having had a good play with an SL and M primes, the user experience is very good and the immediate focus zoom on pressing the joystick works really well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 30, 2016 Share #29 Posted November 30, 2016 What is "shoot street"? I can understand carrying around an M with 35 or 50 on it - I do that most of the time. If I see an opportunistic image or some context, then I take the picture. But that is just having a camera with you. Conversely, if I'm going somewhere there might well be a good photo opportunity - a market or a city with historic interest or some urban setting, I will think more carefully about what I take as a purpose of the outing is to take considered images in an urban setting. Then I will probably want more options. Put another way, few of my lenses are single purpose (landscape only, or street only). I have the gear, and I try to use it and I will try to take the best camera and lens combination for the images I want or am likely to get. The SL and 24-90 zoom is a good combination for that; my only reservation is its size could be intimidating and/or may draw attention to me, where an M might not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MT0227 Posted December 1, 2016 Share #30 Posted December 1, 2016 John, Given the choices presented 24,50,90 or 24-90. I was saying that for street photography I'd prefer to carry either the 24/90 combo or 50 stand alone as opposed to the larger heavier 24-90 zoom. Similarly, the next day ... if I wanted to capture some street art, city scapes....etc I'd rather grab the 24 and maybe the 50 as opposed to the larger, much heavier zoom option. So....no single purpose use here. I prefer to take what I need for what I intend to shoot. The latter typically dictates the focal length required. If something unintended comes up, I'll have to make due with what I have. You can't plan for everything and you can't take every tool with you. I was a 3 zoom guy for some time before moving over to Leica. I had a 14-24, 24-80, 80-200. After analyzing the focal lengths I was shooting at, I was able to narrow down where I shot most and what primes to get. With the 14-24 ...21mm was the most used, thus I have 21mm SEM. With the 24-80, the use was centered around 35mm and 50mm; as a result I have the 35lux FLE and Nocti f/1. The 24-90 SL zoom option for me would just have me always carring more than I need and makes the SL a much larger platform than I prefer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 1, 2016 Share #31 Posted December 1, 2016 When I was in New York a couple of months ago, I used the 24-90 zoom almost exclusively - size and weight weren't actually a problem, but then everyone is different, I guess. My point was more that if you have the gear, use it. If it's too heavy etc, then in what circumstances won't it be heavy? There's nothing, to my mind, specific about "street" photography (I'm not getting at you, just challenging a common concept). Sure, I would struggle to take spontaneous urban photographs with an SWC, but people do ... If I wish to take a momentary image in an urban context (street?), then AF and a zoom significantly increases my chances of getting that shot. I'm not talking of dancing through crowds like Cartier-Bresson or assaulting people like Guilden; just walking through life, exploring and enjoying a town or city. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MT0227 Posted December 1, 2016 Share #32 Posted December 1, 2016 You mean like this ? SWC/M with TMAX100, next 2 are with Tri-X 2016-05-10-0005 by Marc Tauber, on Flickr 2016-05-10-0002 by Marc Tauber, on Flickr "Meeting Across The River" - Paulus Hook, NJ 2016-06-04-0002 by Marc Tauber, on Flickr Sure, I would struggle to take spontaneous urban photographs with an SWC, but people do ... Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MT0227 Posted December 1, 2016 Share #33 Posted December 1, 2016 John..I agree. If you have it, use it. If you're not, sell it for something else that you will use. The OP was not using it (24-90) and leaving it at home because it was 'too heavy'. Perhaps the OP was used to carrying smaller primes to get the job done and in comparison to the zoom... the bulk, added weight and un-needed focal lengths for what he shoots make the zoom too heavy. My point was more that if you have the gear, use it. If it's too heavy etc, then in what circumstances won't it be heavy? Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.