Jump to content

First Leica SL or M240?


Copic

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My father is looking for a nice camera and I am suggesting a Leica.  I shoot Leica M3, M5, and M6 as a hobby (film is sadly getting expensive though so I don't shoot as much anymore).  He has been a Nikon shooter his whole life but hasn't had a new camera since his D300 which is about 10 years old now (okay he has a Sony RX100 III).

 

He just retired and wants a nice camera which is nice to use and takes great photos (obviously the photographer makes great photos and not the camera) but he isn't sure what to go with.  He wants to be able to shoot interiors, people and landscapes.  For the SL there is a lens which covers 28-90mm or in the M system he could buy three individual lenses which suit his needs.  Money isn't as important as finding the right camera.

 

I have no experience with the SL system but have used the M 240 and M9 cameras briefly.  I think the SL will be more comfortable for him but I am definitely partial to the M series as I think it offers a more unique "Leica experience".  He went to the local Leica boutique and liked both cameras but does not know which is better.  He liked the SL which he said is almost as lightweight as the M240...but I cannot imagine walking around with that big of camera and lens. 

 

Which camera will produce the best results with minimal processing (something my father is not that familiar with)?  Also which lenses would you recommend for him?  I think he wants lenses that produce a Leica look (i.e. something that you cannot get with a Nikon, Canon, or Sony). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a question of weight and eyes and if later on other lenses will be used for special things like

macros. I had a M 240 - which was excellent with following lenses: 18 mm, 28 mm, 50 mm and 90 mm

(macro) and used the EVF in addition because of my eyes. That was a good solution and not heavy, but

not the best regarding my eyes and the possibility to adapt some of my Canon lenses (I used a Canon system in addition for macros, telephotos and extreme wide angle). Therefore I went for a SL and I now I

have all the things I want. Only disadvantage is the weight. But I never regretted my decision. And

together with the Novoflex adapter I am able to use a lot of Canon lenses, i.e. the excellent 11/24 mm.

Edited by HeinzX
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think these are two very different cameras - really experiences - which will both produce very good results. The real answer depends on what your dad wants. If he wants to practice pure photography, meaning manual focus, manual depth of field decisions, manual composition, then the M is a no brainer (and saves about $1500, which will buy a good lens). If he is more interested in capturing image as opposed to making image then the SL is probably more appropriate.

If he is too used to the D300 and the Sony RX there will be a learning curve with the M. And given he is retired that might be fine, but it will take time to get M results as good as SL results right off the box. In my opinion though, if you master the M the quality of the images you get is unparalleled and the practicality of it is unbearable. But these last are purely subjective and highly emotional assessments.

 

Sent from my VS835 using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a retiree who went from a Nikon D7000 to a Leica M (by way of the Fuji X-100/S), I realized that when traveling or even just general usage, I wanted something that was smaller & more light weight.  The Leica M with three lenses in the focal ranges you are thinking of was perfect for me.  I also really enjoyed getting back to my origins in photography with manual focusing & using the rangefinder patch to do so.  I also got very involved in learning how to process & edit in Lightroom & Photoshop, which I still enjoy doing, apart from the capture experiences.  However, with age I also developed some vision issues which made it more difficult to focus the M.  So I now have a Leica Q, with its options of either auto focus or manual focusing using the very capable magnification & peaking aids.  I tend to think of the Q as a smaller & lighter weight, fixed lens SL (since the sensor & processor are pretty much the same).  So this might even be an option for your dad if he can live with the one lens only condition; but if so, the 28mm f/1.7 Summilux on the Q is a wonderful lens.  Also take into consideration, if he is not going to want to get into using a photo editor for processing, he may want to create jpeg files only.  In this case, you will want to select one of these Leica's that produces the best jpeg files, either SOOC or with the least amount of adjusting needed afterwords.  Since I have been a RAW only shooter, I can't give any advice about this.  But good luck & my best wishes to your father in his retirement with one of these fine Leica alternative camera systems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the responses.  

 

I suspect in the beginning he will want to shoot JPEGs since that is what he has been doing with all of his cameras.  Which camera offers the best JPEG performance 

 

He is struggling with the decision because a full frame Nikon, Sony, Canon have nicer sensors and offer a lot more for the money.  But he doesn't like that they do not have that special feeling which the Leica does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you all for the responses.

 

I suspect in the beginning he will want to shoot JPEGs since that is what he has been doing with all of his cameras. Which camera offers the best JPEG performance

 

He is struggling with the decision because a full frame Nikon, Sony, Canon have nicer sensors and offer a lot more for the money. But he doesn't like that they do not have that special feeling which the Leica does.

The JPG quality out of both is very similar (if not identical). They both have the 24 MP CMOS sensor (vs the M9 that had the CCD and therefore different grayscale) and the Maestro II processing software. So they process RAW to JPG almost identically.

 

But with all due respect to your father, the best reason to move to Leica vs Nikon is to NOT shoot JPG.

 

I shoot both an M and a Nikon D810. The Nikon is "fire and forget" and I use for "volume photography:" vacations with the kids, their sporting events, family gatherings. I shoot JPG and rarely take my finger off the trigger. Who cares. The pictures end up in shutterfly albums for the grandparents.

 

The Leica is for craft. I probably take 10 or 20 times less pictures. Its for portrait and architecture. For trips with my wife. It's super quiet and does not yell "TOURIST" in the streets of Paris or Rome. Each picture takes many seconds to compose and optimize. So you shoot RAW because what's the point of doing all the work on the camera to let the software decide the final look? Don't get me wrong. The JPGs are as good - or better - than Nikon's, but the RAWs are just unbelievable.

 

Btw. The software takes 30 minutes to learn to produce great results and maybe 2 hours to get spectacular. Its part of the fun.

 

Sent from my VS835 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...