M10 or SL

[waterman1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Last year, I sold my M240, while value was still high, in order to obtain the SL and 24-90 zoom, I wanted the versatility.  I kept my APO 50mm, M-90mm Elmarit and ended up getting the 28mm Lux.  I have seen and used the M10 and have played with dozen of files, great camera and wonderful files.  I placed my name on the list and thought about selling my SL kit.  But reality and brain finally won over my heart, this week, Dan Tamarkin called me about a silver-gray M9 with a new sensor and 1 year warranty.  On Monday, I will have my new/old M9 along with my SL. I didn't want to be in a either/or situation. I will take myself off the M10 list. 

 

I first started with the M9 4 years ago when I sold all my Canon gear, 5DIII, L24-70, L70-200, 50mm 1.2, 35mm 1.4.  I remember thinking that I sold all that equipment and all I got was a M9 and 50mm Lux but I couldn't have been happier.  

 

I will have the M9 (again) to take with me everywhere and the enjoyment of the rangefinder experience.  I tell people when it comes to the M9, don't worry about what it doesn't do and focus on what it does so well, the image.  The M10 can wait for a couple of years and it will be my retirement present to myself and at that point I will decide the need for the SL kit.

 

Sal

[Advertisement]

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

[phongph]

Last year, I sold my M240, while value was still high, in order to obtain the SL and 24-90 zoom, I wanted the versatility.  I kept my APO 50mm, M-90mm Elmarit and ended up getting the 28mm Lux.  I have seen and used the M10 and have played with dozen of files, great camera and wonderful files.  I placed my name on the list and thought about selling my SL kit.  But reality and brain finally won over my heart, this week, Dan Tamarkin called me about a silver-gray M9 with a new sensor and 1 year warranty.  On Monday, I will have my new/old M9 along with my SL. I didn't want to be in a either/or situation. I will take myself off the M10 list. 

 

I first started with the M9 4 years ago when I sold all my Canon gear, 5DIII, L24-70, L70-200, 50mm 1.2, 35mm 1.4.  I remember thinking that I sold all that equipment and all I got was a M9 and 50mm Lux but I couldn't have been happier.  

 

I will have the M9 (again) to take with me everywhere and the enjoyment of the rangefinder experience.  I tell people when it comes to the M9, don't worry about what it doesn't do and focus on what it does so well, the image.  The M10 can wait for a couple of years and it will be my retirement present to myself and at that point I will decide the need for the SL kit.

 

Sal

Hi Waterman1!

I have the same concern as yours! I like the render of M9 more than M10.

My gear is SL 601, SL 24-90/ASPH, M 50 Apo f2.0, M 75 Lux f1.4.

Have a good day!

Thanks!

[olgierdc]

I purchased the SL new because I need a zoom to do tech scouts for film work. I liked the 24-90 zoom, the amazing evf, and most of all - a far newer and improved sensor over the MP240. I have a good stock pile of M lenses. With this new M10 I see an at least equal sensor, a usable evf, and I've since realized I can get a 28-90 R that will give me a zoom for scouts. I don't use ANY of the other SL features like video, etc. I just take photos and sometimes use the wifi. Anybody else thinking about dumping the SL? I do love the camera, but sometimes when it's just an M lens like a 28 summilux having a M camera makes some sense. Thanks in advance friends.

 

 

 

I like being invisible. With SL it is not possible. I have a very small bag for the M10. With a 28 or 35 mm lens I have everything I need for my photos. All the people I take pictures are smiling. I am also so happy.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

They are complementary camera systems .... both suited for different tasks, and in a perfect world you would be better to have both. 

 

Despite the size, if forced to choose I would keep the SL as it offers AF, OIS and the option to use M & R series lenses as if using a RF/SLR as the EVF is close to optical in use. 

 

The real test is what you end up using most ....... I have M240, Monochrom, T, Q and SL ........ and the SL produces 90% of my images.... and the % of technically good images is much higher than with the M.

 

If I added an M10 I doubt this pattern would change much after the initial enthusiasm had paled .....

 

At the end of the day the camera that you use is the one that puts a smile on your face..... despite its quirks or irritations. Go with what you like, rather than what you think you need. 

That's exactly how I feel about it...............I'm trying to get a M10 just now and will use it in conformation with the SL or S

[elwyn]

As a Leica newbie I've read and learnt a lot from a number of posts on this site over the last couple of years, but can also see how polarised some peoples opinions can be - so I'm slightly nervous about expressing any opinion. I'm a relatively new to photography too - having switched to photography when my guitar playing fingers got to be too arthritic to play properly anymore, so I sold my guitars and bought an M240 and three nice lenses.

 

I started photography with the M240, because I wanted to understand, enjoy, and take satisfaction in taking photographs, without all the "helpful" additions that some modern cameras have. I really love my new interest and am learning and getting better all the time.

However after a while I found my older eyes needed help focussing, especially when using the 0.95 Nocti and the 90mm Cron Lenses (my only other lens - a 28mm Lux was no problem), so after a year or so with the M240 I switched to the SL.

 

Using just my three original M Lenses, I really took to the SL straight away and got to be able to use it quickly and intuitively, with plenty of really nice keepers. However, as many others have commented, compared to the M the SL is heavy, and I noticed I that I wasn't taking it out quite as often as I did my M240. So...I bought the M10, but kept my SL with the intention of selling it on.

 

For the first couple of weeks the M10 seemed everything I was looking for, small, light, easy to use and the improvements in the viewfinder made life a lot easier compared to the M240. I ordered the Visoflex 020 at the same time as I ordered the M10, thinking that would it be useful, but after using it for a while - the fact that I was using a bolt-on EVF on a camera that was supposed to be a rangefinder didn't make sense for me. Though I did like the way the 020  automatically magnified the view using the M lenses though, which is better than having to press the SL's Joystick each time.

So, after a few weeks of internal debate, I've now sold my M10 and gone back to my SL, which I now appreciate a lot more now and as I'm still new to photography I'm not yet in a particular photographic niche, so I find the SL so much more flexible for all the types of photography I try do. No, I've never used the video. 

 

I still love and miss my M10, which was a great camera and a logical evolutionary progression from the M240, but having tried both cameras side by side, I'm more than happy to take the negatives of the increased weight of the SL for the built-in EVF, and the flexibility that it gives me.

 

Just my relatively inexperienced, but honest views.

[riswanc]

I gave up on the SL

 

It was a beast and very versatile, and i only used it SL mount lens

 

But i think my Q suffices for the output

 

And i'm back with the M 10

 

SL was just too big for my style photography

 

 

Instagram @jakontil

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a Leica newbie I've read and learnt a lot from a number of posts on this site over the last couple of years, but can also see how polarised some peoples opinions can be - so I'm slightly nervous about expressing any opinion. I'm a relatively new to photography too - having switched to photography when my guitar playing fingers got to be too arthritic to play properly anymore, so I sold my guitars and bought an M240 and three nice lenses.

 

I started photography with the M240, because I wanted to understand, enjoy, and take satisfaction in taking photographs, without all the "helpful" additions that some modern cameras have. I really love my new interest and am learning and getting better all the time.

However after a while I found my older eyes needed help focussing, especially when using the 0.95 Nocti and the 90mm Cron Lenses (my only other lens - a 28mm Lux was no problem), so after a year or so with the M240 I switched to the SL.

 

Using just my three original M Lenses, I really took to the SL straight away and got to be able to use it quickly and intuitively, with plenty of really nice keepers. However, as many others have commented, compared to the M the SL is heavy, and I noticed I that I wasn't taking it out quite as often as I did my M240. So...I bought the M10, but kept my SL with the intention of selling it on.

 

For the first couple of weeks the M10 seemed everything I was looking for, small, light, easy to use and the improvements in the viewfinder made life a lot easier compared to the M240. I ordered the Visoflex 020 at the same time as I ordered the M10, thinking that would it be useful, but after using it for a while - the fact that I was using a bolt-on EVF on a camera that was supposed to be a rangefinder didn't make sense for me. Though I did like the way the 020  automatically magnified the view using the M lenses though, which is better than having to press the SL's Joystick each time.

So, after a few weeks of internal debate, I've now sold my M10 and gone back to my SL, which I now appreciate a lot more now and as I'm still new to photography I'm not yet in a particular photographic niche, so I find the SL so much more flexible for all the types of photography I try do. No, I've never used the video. 

 

I still love and miss my M10, which was a great camera and a logical evolutionary progression from the M240, but having tried both cameras side by side, I'm more than happy to take the negatives of the increased weight of the SL for the built-in EVF, and the flexibility that it gives me.

 

Just my relatively inexperienced, but honest views.

 

Welcome, Elwyn.

 

I couldn't agree more with your post.  Whenever I find the SL too big and heavy with the zooms, I put the 28 Summilux on it and I find it the perfect platform.  My only residual lust is for something smaller and lighter for those times when taking an all singing all dancing camera is just not justified.  The Q or TL2 might be the answer there ...

[Eric1]

The whole point of Prime Lenses is that it forces the photographer to get close and intimate with his or her subject. Zoom lenses cheat that process. I don't think you can compare the M10 with the SL because there based on different philosophies about photography.

[Jeff S]

The whole point of Prime Lenses is that it forces the photographer to get close and intimate with his or her subject. Zoom lenses cheat that process. I don't think you can compare the M10 with the SL because there based on different philosophies about photography.

Please explain the 'philosophy' associated with the SL and SL primes, or any other prime on the SL,

 

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

The whole point of Prime Lenses is that it forces the photographer to get close and intimate with his or her subject. Zoom lenses cheat that process. I don't think you can compare the M10 with the SL because there based on different philosophies about photography.

 

Hi Eric,

 

I don't understand this point at all.  Functionally, the SL works better (for me) with M primes than the M cameras do, and the image quality is pretty much the same.

[Eric1]

Hi Eric,

 

I don't understand this point at all.  Functionally, the SL works better (for me) with M primes than the M cameras do, and the image quality is pretty much the same.

The M is a rangefinder. Of course it's a different philosophy. Not rocket science.

[Ozytripper]

I really appreciate everyone chiming in. I'm feeling like the difference is mostly the AF features of the SL and its more robust build. I've read Sean Reads review and can see the differences. I'll respect his pay website, but I think we all know its a subtle difference. I can't decide if they compliment or compete. For now, there aren't any OMFG lenses that are only SL mount. The 50 1.4 is big and slow. The zoom is really useful for work and has great image quality. Maybe when the 75 and 35 come out a clearer decision can be made. I just know this, walking around with an SL and a M lens is significantly less comfortable than walking around with a M and the same lens. Ugh.

I dumped my SL because it was just too heavy and I would not carry it around. The only reason for my using the SL is auto focus but the lenses are just humungous.

I would not buy an SL to use M lenses on as it it still a 30% increase in weight body alone.

If you don't mind carrying it the keep it. As mentioned before the resale value is not very attractive.

[Ozytripper]

The whole point of Prime Lenses is that it forces the photographer to get close and intimate with his or her subject. Zoom lenses cheat that process. I don't think you can compare the M10 with the SL because there based on different philosophies about photography.

why can't one get close and intimate with his or her subject when using a zoom lens too? isn't it how you use it? A zoom can be used exactly like a prime except you don't have to change lenses

Isn't a 16-18-21 mm an M zoom? or the 28-35-50mm?

Sounds more like the tool dictating the user than the user using the tool

[IkarusJohn]

The M is a rangefinder. Of course it's a different philosophy. Not rocket science.

 

No, I agree it isn't rocket science at all.

 

You can't take a picture with a philosophy, but you can take pictures with an SL using M primes; and very effectively too.  There is no real image quality benefit using M lenses on either an M camera or an SL, but the user interface is very different.

 

That's a good thing.  I tend not to let philosophy get in the way of my enjoyment, and the SL with 21 Summilux, 28 Summilux, Noctilux and 75 Summilux is very enjoyable - actually more enjoyable (with the exception of the 28 Summilux) than with an M camera.  As the SL is my only colour digital, there are other very good reasons why I would use the SL rather than my Monochrom ...

 

But then, it's just philosophy, I guess, and I try to leave that to philosophers.  (EEEmanuel Kant was a real piss-ant and very rarely sober ...)

[Jeff S]

What's the best bag for a philosophy?

 

Jeff

[jdlaing]

What's the best bag for a philosophy?

 

Jeff

That's a philosophical question.

[Jeff S]

That's a philosophical question.

So, a heavy burden. A backpack, perhaps.

 

Jeff

[Alistairm]

I bought an M240 a few years ago, because I wanted to try Leica lenses. I quickly stopped carrying my Nikon SLR around unless I needed the autofocus - mostly shooting birds or sport. I was in love with the way the M240 rendered... the falloff of contrast from the focal plane, the way shadows were rendered and the step away from the HDR like images that most modern DSLRs seem to be tuned for these days. I was also in love with taking photos again... it felt like using a camera, not a computer.

 

Along came a collection of Leica M lenses... all fascinating in their own way. My favourite Nikon lenses were the 58 f/1.4 and 105 f.2 DC for their rendering... not the best MTF performers, but lenses with character. All of a sudden just about every Leica lens had character AND exquisite sharpness. Before I knew it I had the 24 Lux, 28 Elmarit, 35 Lux, 50 APO Cron, 0.95 Nocti, 75 APO Cron, WATE... and the list went on, including an MS Optics 21 f/4.5. A painter's pallete rather than a choice of lenses.

 

The SL put the nail in the coffin of my Nikon gear for everything except shooting birds with the 500 f/4 and fast moving macro work (where I already have a dedicated flash setup). The SL has allowed me to stand in the ocean photographing surfing, take tens of thousands of photos of soccer and netball (the 90-280 leaves the Nikon 70-200 so far for dead it's not funny), document weddings and parties and do everything my SLR used to be relied upon for. With the accessory grip it's comfortable for extended sessions with long glass. Without the grip and with a 28 M Elmarit it is very portable and quite unobtrusive.

 

I was absolutely sure that I would never like using an EVF, being a die hard OVF fan... but all of a sudden the rendering of landscapes and scenes with difficult lighting are a cinch.

 

Further, I've now used the Leica APO-Macro-Summarit-S 120 mm f/2.5 on the SL, and am ecstatic with the results. And don't get me started on the Summilux-SL 50... what a lens.

 

So for me, the SL has opened the full world of Leica magic to me, being able to explore its native lenses, all of my exquisite M glass and now dipping my toe into the S glass too. At the same time, it is rugged and capable of meeting almost every photographic need. The only downside really is the eye watering cost of this Leica gear.

 

All that said, I'm currently holidaying overseas with the M10. It is such an amazing rangefinder, and while I was pretty good with the M240 I'd say I have a 99%+ focus rate with the M10... I'm no expert on technical reasons, but for me the rangefinder is much better. The M10 is so unobtrusive and so mechanically satisfying... it epitomises the reason I bought a Leica in the first place.

 

If I could only have one, it would be the SL and I fervently hope Leica sells heaps of them and continues to develop the platform for decades. The native lenses are huge, but it can be compact with M lenses. And the results are stunning. But it's still more like the modern SLR experience of using a computer to make photos. The M10 still feels more engaging.

 

Sorry for the long post, but if you can only have one I guess it boils down to whether you want a weather sealed, robust and highly versatile image making machine or whether you want the best compact. modern, mechanically engaging camera Leica has ever made. Both are amazing bits of kit.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Welcome, Elwyn.

 

I couldn't agree more with your post.  Whenever I find the SL too big and heavy with the zooms, I put the 28 Summilux on it and I find it the perfect platform.  My only residual lust is for something smaller and lighter for those times when taking an all singing all dancing camera is just not justified.  The Q or TL2 might be the answer there ...

John

I only use my SL with M lenses, I do not own any SL lenses as all my S lenses work on the SL but if I going to shoot with the S lenses then they will be on the S007. The adapter works great and also givesds AF but its really gimmicky so I never use it (another 2k adapter sat in a drawer).

Ive got one more safari then all my Nikon gear is going, cant be arsed shooting birds anymore while getting eaten by mosquitos, so eventually I will be left with just S and SL and the LF gear, I'll get rid off all my 120 and 135 gear as well. 

Neil

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

The whole point of Prime Lenses is that it forces the photographer to get close and intimate with his or her subject. Zoom lenses cheat that process. I don't think you can compare the M10 with the SL because there based on different philosophies about photography.

Try getting close and intimate with a 600mm f4 lens, that I used once on my M240...................it dosent work very well

 

Neil