SL users considering M10? Or M lens?

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

billbrown's analysis is not out of line with my own.

 

I use the SL more for specifically directed photography and for all the things it can do that an M cannot do easily. I use it for when I know I MUST get the shot and don't want to waste time trying. It is a versatile, pro-grade camera system. 

 

When I just want to grab a camera to have it along and do a more casual style of photography, I pick up the M-D, usually with one lens mounted and another complementary focal length in the bag, and go with it. I rarely change the lens. The M-D is, like all Ms have been, simply a very high quality, fairly compact, and handy camera to use whenever. It's not the be-all, do-all kind of camera that a pro-grade SLR or TTL-EVF camera is. It's simple, direct, and up to you to make it sing.

 

It's the nature of these cameras that they are functionally better for some circumstances than others. And their capabilities/workflow are so divergent it should be no surprise that you tend to use them in different ways, for different circumstances. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by ramarren

[thighslapper]

Got a safe full of various Leicas including M's and MM.

 

Not used since I got an SL...... and I don't think an M10 would change that.

 

In the various trade-offs between usability, flexibility, image quality, hit rate and portability, the SL still wins.

 

Q comes in a close second and would be my go to for travelling light. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by thighslapper

[jrp]

Maybe it's because I wear glasses, I find that I use the SL much more than my M240. Far fewer misframed or out of focus shots. I started with onlybM lenses on the SL, but find that the zooms are much more versatile without giving up much, if anything on image quality. I tend only to use my wide angle M lenses or fast ones indoors or in low light. In some ways, the SL is a boring camera because it just works and I have no excuse for getting poor pictures technically, forcing me to concentrate on composition, catching the moment, etc.

[Guest VVJ]

I bought my SL about a year ago and I find that I not only use it 90% of the time but also that I started shooting a lot more again...

Up till now it has proven to be very reliable and simply a joy to work with.

I have reached a point now where I start thinking about selling the Q, T, M9, S2P, etc...

To answer the original question, at this stage buying a M10 is not on my mind, never say never though...

PS.  I am glad the M10 appears to be very successful.  It looks like both SL and M will be able to co-exist successfully which is good news for Leica and everybody!

[LocalHero1953]

Maybe it's because I wear glasses, I find that I use the SL much more than my M240. Far fewer misframed or out of focus shots. I started with onlybM lenses on the SL, but find that the zooms are much more versatile without giving up much, if anything on image quality. I tend only to use my wide angle M lenses or fast ones indoors or in low light. In some ways, the SL is a boring camera because it just works and I have no excuse for getting poor pictures technically, forcing me to concentrate on composition, catching the moment, etc.

This should make us think, once again, about what it was that attracted those of us who went from SLRs and other systems to the M, and why it has been easy for some of us to move to a notionally SLR-comparable camera in the SL.

 

It highlights the importance of interface/ergonomics/haptics (whatever you wish to call it). Other cameras can match Leicas in IQ and technical performance, but none place as much emphasis on overall usability. I moved from a digital Canon SLR to the M9 and rejoiced in its simplicity (and its technical quality). A couple of years ago I was in need of some other capabilities, and flirted with a OMD EM5-ii. It was technically wonderful, but had a complex and unintuitive interface that never became second nature.

 

The SL, although SLR-like in size, is far simpler to use and a world away from the EM5-ii (and similar MFT/mirrorless cameras - Olympus is no worse than others). Like the M, the SL gets out of the way as much as possible. Where you need access to the inner workings, I find it intuitive.

 

The technical capability of the SL, plus Leica's ability to make using it an entirely natural process, is what makes it so effective. Unfortunately only half the equation can be expressed in technical specs.

[jrp]

Well I moved from SLR land because the M lenses were much more compact. Unfortunately I tried the 24-90mm zoom, which is a monster, but the performance means that it can replace several M lenses in summer and outside, at least.

 

I think that the SL firmware can still be improved (see other thread) to make the shooting experience a bit less button press heavy. E.g., I would like to be able to use the level and focus peaking when magnified. I suspect, however, that Leica are spending their time tuning focus performance with the newer lenses.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After I got my SL my M usage plummeted. I can focus just fine but a few lenses I own are on the edge of what the RF in the M240 can handle. The SL focuses these with ease. In addition I use the SL for work so it was my 90% camera.

 

When I handled the M10 I was surprised how much more I liked it than the 240. Part of that was the 50mm black chrome lens. I upgraded to that lens and found I was enjoying my M again. The handling just suits me better. So I took the plunge and got the M10.

 

The new lens negates any weight savings but the handling is so much better as is the uasbility. I also found all my "troublesome" lenses easy to focus on the M10. So once again the M has become my everyday take everywhere camera.

 

I still love my SL. I am fortunate to be able to keep both and will do so.

 

Gordon

[Jeff S]

When I handled the M10 I was surprised how much more I liked it than the 240. Part of that was the 50mm black chrome lens. I upgraded to that lens and found I was enjoying my M again. The handling just suits me better. So I took the plunge and got the M10.

 

Gordon, don't recall if you addressed this elsewhere, but do you use the hood that's supplied with the black chrome version? Its size and separate attachment seem less appealing than the built-in hood on the standard version, although the focus knob seems an improvement.

 

Jeff

[taosantamonica]

Since getting the SL I usually only carry it and a MM1. I don’t need a M10 as I still have a M9P and M240P. That gives me 2 sensor replaced CCD M’s and a M to use M/R lenses on….I’ll take a serious look at the M10M when/if it comes out though. I’m going to give my M240P and MM1(if I get a M10M) and a couple of lenses to a cousin who is beginning to really enjoy photography. I don’t have any need for SL lenses with their size and weight as my M/R lenses work well for what I do. I also don’t have an all day carrying problem with the SL and M lenses. I took the M9P out today and still enjoy the images I capture with it and its size/weight. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Gordon, don't recall if you addressed this elsewhere, but do you use the hood that's supplied with the black chrome version? Its size and separate attachment seem less appealing than the built-in hood on the standard version, although the focus knob seems an improvement.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff,

 

I don't tend to use the hood. With the M it's about being compact, for me. Didn't use the extending hood much either. M lenses are where I tend not to use the hoods.

 

But I do use the SL 'lux hood always....

 

Gordon

[Jeff S]

Jeff,

 

I don't tend to use the hood. With the M it's about being compact, for me. Didn't use the extending hood much either. M lenses are where I tend not to use the hoods.

 

But I do use the SL 'lux hood always....

 

Gordon

Thanks. I think I'd be more inclined to skip the hood on the SL lenses, except on a tripod.... those hoods are huge.

 

Do you use a protective filter for M lenses or just bare?

 

Jeff

Edited April 17, 2017 by Jeff S

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Thanks. I think I'd be more inclined to skip the hood on the SL lenses, except on a tripod.... those hoods are huge.

 

Do you use a protective filter for M lenses or just bare?

 

Jeff

 

No filters unless they serve a specific image need. I like to live on the edge.

 

Plus the BC Summilux has a stunning push on cap for going hoodless...

 

Gordon

 

With the SL I',m more likely to be in a place where contact might be made with the camera, hence the hood. But at yesterdays wedding I only took three hoods for 4 lenses because I can share the same one (say the 50 SL, 120 S macro, for example) sometimes.

[northernlights]

On 4/14/2017 at 3:24 PM, bilbrown said:

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.

This is one of the most useful posts for someone agonising over choosing an SL or M. A must read. He has also given an emphatic opinion and did not sit on the fence. Kudos!

[Jeff S]

48 minutes ago, northernlights said:

This is one of the most useful posts for someone agonising over choosing an SL or M. A must read. He has also given an emphatic opinion and did not sit on the fence. Kudos!

His post is roughly 3 years old.... keep in mind that, according to more recent posts, he also owns an S1, an FP, a Pentax 645Z, a RED, an S system, maybe an SL2, etc.

It’s good to analyze one’s shooting habits from time to time, but dangerous for others to project similar conclusions about their own usage.  We’re all different... gear serves many possible needs/wants/goals...and GAS can override any logic.

Jeff

[alywit]

I own the SL2 with the 24-90 Leica monster sized lens which I use for shooting my kids sports and events where there is a destination so I don’t have to haul it all day. The picture quality Is sharp and the bokeh excellent.

I purchased a 28mm Summicron f2 lens for my SL2 with an adapter and that is what stays on my camera most days as it is easy to carry around and the photo quality is great. Actually I love the picture quality that this combo produces.

I wear glasses and contacts interchangeably and like the ability to adjust the diopter on the eyepiece with the SL2. With a smaller lens on the camera it is much easier to be unobtrusive. And actually I tried the M cameras before choosing my SL2 and found in my hands their grips to be comparatively uncomfortable to the SL2. 

I’m a relatively new amateur Leica user so this is just my own limited humble experience. Hope it helps. Best of luck with your plans!

Edited March 1, 2020 by alywit
Grammar