SL users considering M10? Or M lens?

[Big John]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

I am happy with my SL, had it nearly a year and it has produced some nice images.

 

I was torn between an M240 and the SL when I made the purchase. In the end, the quality of the SL EVF and the fact that I was looking thru the lens, convinced me to go for the SL. I have only one lens for the camera, the 24-90, but it is a great all rounder.

 

Issues...2:

 

1. Weight/size....not sure if it is weight or bulk but I do find it a big of a deal to carry all day.

 

2. Heart v Head....I seem to have a longing for an M, built up since admiring the camera back in film days, but when it was not affordable (it is now for me!)

 

I think an M lens would address point (1). But wonder if there is any way to get around point (2) other that buying an M; if so, I am thinking whether to get a new M10 or start off and try with an M9 for example. I need to try our rangefinder focussing for myself.

 

Wondering if anyone else has been thru these deliberations?

 

Thanks.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Definitely try an M first.... rent, demo, borrow, or buy used older model.... some bond with the RF experience, some don't.

 

These can be complementary systems, not necessarily either/ or. I've owned M's since the 80's, and may add an SL system soon to address different needs.

 

Jeff

[caissa]

Coming from the lens side (R and M lenses) this was never a question. I bought the SL explicitly because it was the "wonder" camera that allowed to use R and M lenses (even the difficult M lenses) and many others AND autofocus as well if needed.

In the end the SL is for me a great pleasure because it turned out much better than expected, and this gets even better the more native lenses I see (they are again a step up)

The SL is my style (I like to control exactly dof and the area to be in the foto). I like to use a wide range of lenses (16-560mm). I use a M246 from time to time, but feel less comfortable with it. More for the uncontrolled spontaneous moment.

 

I think if the 24-90 is too heavy for daily use, simply buy anything that suits you better (and forget the old restrictions, you can use now M and R and Contax and Zeiss and Sigma AF, etc.) Choose the quality carefully, make tests before you buy, but do also not lightly dismiss lenses, just because they have a different name/brand.

Maybe I'm blunt. Chosing a M because the SL with lens is too heavy is a weak decision. Either your style is more spontaneous (M) or more loving the control (SL) and after that decision the lenses can be selected.

[Big John]

Coming from the lens side (R and M lenses) this was never a question. I bought the SL explicitly because it was the "wonder" camera that allowed to use R and M lenses (even the difficult M lenses) and many others AND autofocus as well if needed.

In the end the SL is for me a great pleasure because it turned out much better than expected, and this gets even better the more native lenses I see (they are again a step up)

The SL is my style (I like to control exactly dof and the area to be in the foto). I like to use a wide range of lenses (16-560mm). I use a M246 from time to time, but feel less comfortable with it. More for the uncontrolled spontaneous moment.

 

I think if the 24-90 is too heavy for daily use, simply buy anything that suits you better (and forget the old restrictions, you can use now M and R and Contax and Zeiss and Sigma AF, etc.) Choose the quality carefully, make tests before you buy, but do also not lightly dismiss lenses, just because they have a different name/brand.

Maybe I'm blunt. Chosing a M because the SL with lens is too heavy is a weak decision. Either your style is more spontaneous (M) or more loving the control (SL) and after that decision the lenses can be selected.

Thanks - that all makes a lot of sense to me. I am looking closely at lenses - one thing that is delaying my decision is whether I will in fact end up with an M one day. If I knew that was going to be the case then I would stick with Leica glass. If not, then the best 35mm option I have tried on the SL is the ZM 35/1.4 distagon, just amazing IQ.

[LD_50]

The Zeiss will work as well on an M as an SL, the same as Leica glass.

[AlanJW]

I have both and consider them complementary.  I use mainly M lenses on the SL but like the EVF most of the time.  But I also like the OVF on the M10 and keep a 28 or 35 on it for walking around a bit more discreetly than with an SL.  Having both is a luxury and I am happy I can do that.  But if I had to choose one only I would pick the SL because it is more versatile.   This is truly something very individual and nobody's opinion counts except your own.

[Robert E]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Big John,

 

Know how you feel.

A while ago I sold my M240 to buy my SL and 24-90 lens, still have it, still love it.

But at my age i do find it heavy to carry for a day out.

Missed my M so much, last week I bought a M-P 240 in like new condition, from a seller my age, who (you guessed it) just bought a SL.

On it is my 35mm f2 Zeiss lens which I just could not bring myself to sell after remembering how sharp it was on my previous M.

Now it resides on my M-P 240 and is just as sharp as before. Much lighter to carry around all day.

As far as my SL goes, I have no intention of selling it. Now I have the best of both worlds.

Hope this helps.  

[FlashGordonPhotography]

You could always buy the ZM 35mm you want and the adaptor. Then use it for a bit and decide whether you've gone far enough.

 

Apart from just the size, there are big usability differences you need to consider.

 

Gordon

[ramarren]

For me, an M-D with 35/50/75 lenses is a perfect complement to the SL when I want to carry a smaller camera. And I can use those lenses on the SL if I want too. The SL + SL zooms + R lenses and other accessories (bellows, doublers, macro, etc) are my "work" system, for when I'm shooting things for a specific purpose or a job. The M-D is what I grab and go with.

 

An M10 will be just as satisfying as a complement to the SL as the M-D if you want the more full-featured camera. 

 

What should YOU buy? I don't know, consider your options and what your goals are. If you really want an M, buy one and a lens or two, and the M Adapter L. You can start with the lens and adapter and just use that with the SL for a while, see if the jones for an M evaporates. Add the M body later if it doesn't. 

 

There's no wrong moves here. Just expensive ones. 

[blacksinner]

I am in the same situation as you. i really love my SL. it produce very good result, its nothing like my previous camera. 

on the other hand, sometimes the weight and size prevent me to shoot freely and discreetly. i really consider the M9 or maybe fuji x-pro2. but maybe m9 is more appropriate since the m lenses is full frame.

 

i'm planning to try a used m9 first since you can sell virtually the same price as you buy. i would not jump to the m10. i think m9 is already producing very good result in good lighting. 

[LD_50]

I have both a M-P240 and SL. With M lenses on each camera the size and weight doesn't seem very noticeable.

 

If you already have an SL and you're pleased with the EVF experience I cannot think many reasons to go to an M9. The SL will give better IQ, has a better rear screen, magnification for critical focus, dual cards, etc, etc.

 

The key reason to pickup an M would have to be the rangefinder.

Edited April 10, 2017 by LD_50

[blacksinner]

I have both a M-P240 and SL. With M lenses on each camera the size and weight doesn't seem very noticeable.

 

If you already have an SL and you're pleased with the EVF experience I cannot think many reasons to go to an M9. The SL will give better IQ, has a better rear screen, magnification for critical focus, dual cards, etc, etc.

 

The key reason to pickup an M would have to be the rangefinder.

 

yes i think you are right. the reason is the rangefinder and size. the size will be noticeably smaller i think. but it such a waste for having 2 camera. i think i change my mind, i'll stick to my SL in the mean time. 

[Joshua Lowe]

Not currently interested in the M10 but that could change. I'm happy with owning the SL for digital and M6 for analog.

 

I think the M lens experience on the SL is excellent.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Joshua Lowe

[Big John]

Big John,

 

Know how you feel.

A while ago I sold my M240 to buy my SL and 24-90 lens, still have it, still love it.

But at my age i do find it heavy to carry for a day out.

Missed my M so much, last week I bought a M-P 240 in like new condition, from a seller my age, who (you guessed it) just bought a SL.

On it is my 35mm f2 Zeiss lens which I just could not bring myself to sell after remembering how sharp it was on my previous M.

Now it resides on my M-P 240 and is just as sharp as before. Much lighter to carry around all day.

As far as my SL goes, I have no intention of selling it. Now I have the best of both worlds.

Hope this helps.  

Great post! Thanks.

[geetee1972]

I've expressed fairly strident views on the lens line up for the SL before in other threads.

 

Personally I think the ability to mount M lenses on a mirrorless body with a world class EVF is the single most compelling reason to buy the SL. I have an (analogue) Range Finder as well and the experence is completely different. Both cameras (an M of some form and the SL) will make the same picture and the only thing that will change is the user's experience of doing do. The SL is a bit larger than any M but with an M lens on it, the size difference is not quite the compelling reason to chose one over the other. That still comes down, I think, to whether you want a glass window and RF focusing versus a tiny TV screen with focusing achieved just by looking.

[gvaliquette]

Way back in history, when my SLR system was Contarex, I got a Leica M4-2 and some M lenses as my first RF system, in 1977.  I wanted something smaller and lighter that the Contarex Super.  I later got an R9 when I let go of the Contarex and its lenses (a mistake).  I now have too many Leicas: R9, R6.2, M3, M4-2, M9, M240, and now an SL, which I see as my "R10".  I use the SL as my main camera, with both R and M lenses (I don't have a SL lens), and either the M9 or M240 with a few lenses when walking about or when I want to go light.  The film cameras get exercised every once in a while.

 

It's sort of like having my cake and eating it too!  But it took many years to be able to build up my equipment.  And I truly believe in "never sell a Leica"!

 

Big John, try using a rangefinder camera for a week or so.  If you do like the experience, go ahead and get the M10, and some M lenses, and the M adapter L.  Then, just be happy!

 

Guy

[LocalHero1953]

I have both M240 and SL, with both SL zooms, and I see the systems as complementary. In your shoes, and I could afford it, I wouldn't miss a heartbeat in getting an M10, and miss the M9 with its embarrassingly crap rear view screen, the shutter noise that sounds like someone's dropped a saucepan, and the kodachrome colours (personally, I have always preferred real world colours to kodachrome). I suspect others may have a different take on the M9, but that's mine!

 

For the first extended period, I have been using the SL with M lenses, for hill walking, while my M240 gets its RF recalibrated. TBH, I would still rather have the M for walking with for its size and weight, even though framing (certainly) and focusing (probably, but YMMV) are more accurate with the SL. I find RF focusing faster than MF with the EVF on the SL, but again YMMV. It would help focusing speed and composition if the magnified focus view location could be preset with the joystick before zooming.

Edited April 10, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[bilbrown]

I'm kind of in the same opinion. But here is some interesting data I can tell you from what I recently found out going through my LR catalog.

 

(((Note: this  is ONLY the shots I have processed on my studio computer and not taken directly OOC, or in my MacBook Pro's LR catalog. there are more, but this gives an idea.

I also have data from the M9M, S 006, S 007 and Pentax 645Z, Ricoh GR II but for these purposes I will keep it to current Full Frame Leica bodies SL, M10,M240, M246, Q.)))

 

So, ratios here.

 

in 12 months I have shot 27,669 shots on the SL if I use this as the average I am shooting 2000 shots per month on the SL.

in 12 months I have shot 18,876 shots on the M240 which is about 1,573 per month on the M240.

in 3.5 months of having the M10 I have shot 4,934 shots which is about 1,409 shots per month on the M10.

in 6 months of having the M246 (as a back up to my M240, and a transition from the original M Mono) I have shot 3,262 shots which is about 544 shots per month on the M246.

in 4 months I have shot 1,564 shots on the Q which is about 391 shots per month on the Q.

 

If you decide to do a mean average of the three M bodies (an include the Q), and look at the "TYPES" of shooting I do

you could say the M bodies as a total unit Far surpass what I shoot on the SL per month but in ONE CONSISTENT Camera the SL

FAR SURPASSES the useful number of shots I have to process monthly.

 

Lenses:

 

35 Summicron stays on the M10

50 Summicron stays on the M246

28 Summicron stays on the M240

 

75 Summarit, 90 Summicron, 24-90 SL, 90-280 SL and 70-200 R as well as the above lenses all have been used on the SL because of the EASE

of critical focus with the EVF and accurate focus peaking. Thus, making this my go to for various focal lengths.

 

 

AHHHH, but here is the kicker.... WHAT am I shooting with each camera?

 

SUBJECTS OF MY PHOTOGRAPHY:

 

In my SL catalog 88% of what I am shooting is fashion and portrait in studio or controlled situation, 13% is street or other photos where I would either need critical autofocus or focus that is slower and directed.

In my M and Q catalogs combined (including the M10, M240, M246 and Q) 33% is fashion and portrait in studio or controlled situations and 60% is candid, reportage or street fashion, 7% is family and friends.

 

So in CONCLUSION.

 

While the SL is a better ALL AROUND shooter that has more versitile functionality and choices for focal lengths and shooting speed, the M bodies (including the Q here) are used in more versitile SITUATIONS. 

So depending on the type of photographer you are - the M may be a better all around option, where you will have to of course deal with the limitations, but there is some sort of charm in that - no?

 

MY PERSONAL OPINION outside of any empirical like data above is...

 

The SL is a great camera that fits very well with someone who has either used or needs the versatility of a camera like a SLR or Mirrorless SLR-type. In the Leica line up it fits very very well with the S series professional

medium format cameras, and in some ways definitely surpass them (more of the swiss army knife of cameras, even more than the Sony A7 series which I have also owned, and Fuji X series, which I have also owned).

 

Do i think for an everyday shooter the SL is a good option? Even with M adapter and Lenses (which makes it smaller)? 

 

No. If you want a camera that you will USE in multiple situations and variable shooting environments, I would go with an M. If the manual focus scares you, start with a Q.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LocalHero1953]

I'm kind of in the same opinion. But here is some interesting data I can tell you from what I recently found out going through my LR catalog.

....................etc

This post deserves to be a reference for all those asking “Should I buy an M or an SL?"

Edited April 14, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[Bill W]

I love my SL but I am a long time M user and am awaiting a 10 as soon as more show up in the USA. I will trade in my Monochrom that I found I was just not using it very much.