Jump to content

Real world differences between M lenses on SL and M lenses on M10


pmendelson

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have an M10 and am considering adding a SL as well.  I have read that M lenses perform best on M cameras, and that while they perform well on the SL with the M adapter, they don't perform at quite the same level.  However, I have never seen a real validation or demonstration of the differences, or a specific description of the ways in which M lenses don't perform quite as well on the SL.  

 

Does anyone have both and have any comments on differences they are seeing in performance?

 

Thanks,

 

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter,

 

It is a mantra that M lenses perform best on an M camera.  When the SL came out, both Sean Reid and Jono Slack came to the conclusion that some M lenses (notably the most recent ones like the 28 Summilux) perform better on the SL than on the M(240).  Whether that still holds for the M10, I'm not sure.

 

It is my estimation that the Noctilux performs better on the SL than the M9 or the M(240), and my other lenses perform as well if not better (21 Summilux-M ASPH, 28 Summilux-M ASPH, 50 Summilux-M ASPH, Noctilux 0.95 & 75 Summilux).  I see no advantage in using these lenses on an M camera, other than size and the rangefinder.  If you have older lenses (notably the first version of the 28 Summicron ASPH), then there might be an issue using this lens on the SL.

 

To my mind, this is really for pixel peepers.  

 

Cheers

John

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

by performance: do you mean ease of use especially focusing or final quality of the file ?

 

I have an M10 and am considering adding a SL as well.  I have read that M lenses perform best on M cameras, and that while they perform well on the SL with the M adapter, they don't perform at quite the same level.  However, I have never seen a real validation or demonstration of the differences, or a specific description of the ways in which M lenses don't perform quite as well on the SL.  

 

Does anyone have both and have any comments on differences they are seeing in performance?

 

Thanks,

 

Peter

Edited by frame-it
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From image quality perspective, I seriously doubt splitting hair makes a difference. You can see some online blog showing the image comparisons, I honestly cannot tell the difference apart slight tonal variation due to different source of sensor. In optical design of M10 and SL, both were designed to take on M lenses. My only doubt will come from the light leakage level from M lenses mounting onto the SL via an adapter. And it only matters on long exposures of more than 60 secs. I have not done experiments over SL & M10 on this issue but I have done it over M10 and M240. I found M10 having acceptable light leakage over M240.

As in ergonomic & handling, it has been mentioned already that the bigger & heavier lenses feels more balanced with SL. I have personally moved my Noctilux & 21Lux to be use on my SL and on focusing the Noctilux, the SL is much easier.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless scientifically compared. I find it difficult to differentiate especially after a slight Lightroom tweak. I am completely satasified with SL especially with both the native zooms. I should say the images from my M10 has just a shade of advantage over dynamic range. If I have the leisure of time, M10 with primes would be my choice, but SL comes very close. When AF is called for, there is no choice comparison.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Check out Sean Reid's site for the type of testing needed to answer this question. I am not sure if he's checked the M10 as I no longer subscribe.

 

I shoot an MP240 and an SL and am satisfied with M lenses on both. Reid's tests didn't show anything that caused me any concern to use M lenses on both.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter,

 

I own the M10, the SL, and an M6.   I shoot all 3 with my Nocti 50 f/1 and achieve wonderful results all around.  Shooting the SL with a Nocti ( or any M lens) is an incredible experience as you can see the lens draw the image in the EFV as you shape the shot...what you see is what you get!   So if you are working where you have time to be creative and artistic, the SL is a fabulous tool to use with M lenses.  Ergonomically, the Nocti fits the SL so well in my hands, same with my 90APO; however some of the smaller M Lenses feel a bit dwarfed by the SL, like my 35FLE.

 

In my view the main difference  more than anything else is really two fold: (1) Going from an OVF to the SL's incredible EFV makes for a very different shooting experience; (2) You need to consider the ergonomics and balance with certain M Lenses .  I think you would be happy with the results you get with either body.  Enjoy.

 

-Marc

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

my thought, SL gives more professional files, and M gives more personal files.

what i mean is M files is tweaked a little so people don't have to adjust. it produces good looking picture for general.

SL files is more pure, so user can adjust to what they want.

 

for m lenses i found that 21mm f2.8 pre asph has very dark vignette. but i only found this lens that is not compatible. new lenses is great for SL.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone.  Blacksinner, I assume what you mean is that the SL files are slightly more flat and looks more like a typical unprocessed RAW file that needs to be tweaked, versus the M10 raw files which are less flat and more akin to a finished JPEG file.  That's consistent with other things I have read.

 

I have the Visoflex for the M10, which I use a lot.  I imagine I will appreciate the SL EVF even more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the M10, M-P and SL.

 

Most of the lenses I have perform pretty much the same on any of them, within their own capabilities. The WATE, 90AA, CV35, CV50, 50'lux ASPH, CV75mm 1.8, 135 APO. The WATE is easier to focus on the M10. The rest are easier to focus wide open on the SL and stopped down on the M10.

 

My Noctilux is better on the SL, optically. There's less fringing wide open and it's a different colour and more easily correctable. It's also wildly easier to focus on the SL. I consider it an SL lens. If you avoid backlighting then it's a wash but ease of focusing is still a differentiator.

 

My 28mm 'corn ASPH (the previous one) is better on the M10 than it is on the SL and M-P. New micro lenses have made a real difference with this lens. I don't like it on the M-P or SL but it's dead lovely on the M10. I have heard the upgraded one is great on all. Surprisingly I also like my MATE much more on the M10 than either the SL or M-P. I was going to sell it and the 28mm. Now with the M10 I am keeping both. I consider them both M10 lenses.

 

The SL files are flatter out of camera. Easily fixed in post. The M10 has slightly more DR and less noise than the SL sensor. About half a stop. I don't have a preference for the un processed output of either camera. They're different but both great, for my tastes.

 

The SL is great with "most" M lenses. All the current ones seem fine but test with older designs as they are a bit variable. The M10 seems better with older lenses than it's predecessors and the SL. A few lenses like the Noctilux 0.95 are definitely better on the SL. Focusing fast lenses wide open on the SL is a joy. Stopped down the advantage goes back to the M. At 2.8 they're about the same.

 

Gordon

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

The light changed a little between shots, which is annoying - but it was a quick demonstration - these are imported into Lightroom then exported out with no adjustments

 

35mm 1.4, ISO 100, 1/4000th on both M10 and SL

 

36418496794_128b6c6bb8_b.jpgM10 by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

36858248050_a4d62b83f3_b.jpgSL by dancook1982, on Flickr

Edited by dancook
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best way to think about the two (for me) is that the SL is really a do it all system. The AF, zooms, M lenses, amazing EVF, etc all are a lot of fun and make photography easier. The M system shines for its size and companion like qualities. I think as was said the smaller lenses like the 50 APO really just feel better on the M. I've walked around all day in NY with an SL and a 35 Fle. It wasn't horrible and the images I took were really nice, but an M10 would have just blended in weight wise much better. I do think an arguement can be made to have both.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried out the SL and 24-90mm yesterday at the Leica tent at Photoville in Brooklyn, and walked around for a few hours taking photos with it.  I loved the EVF, the zoom range, silent shutter and speed of focusing.  I did find the focusing ring on the 24-90mm slightly stiff though.

 

Interestingly, I was speaking to the Leica rep at the tent and explained that perhaps I would consider selling my M10 and using the SL instead, and he advised me to think twice before doing this due to the unique quality of the M10 files versus the SL (things like color, dynamic range, etc that added up to a certain look).  When I went home I processed my SL files.  To my eye they reminded me a lot of the files I get from the Q, rather than my M10.  Still very, very nice, but it did make me think that perhaps I do want to hold onto the M10.  Very different cameras with very different ways of shooting but I like them both - I just can't afford to have them both.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All!

I have got SL601 and SL 24-90 over one year. I have also got M10, M35 Lux fle, M 50 Apo and M75 lux about 6 months. I like both camera with couple of SL601 & M35 Lux and M10 & M75 walking around. Sometime I use SL601 & SL24-90 with AF & Zoom for events and children activity. I use M10 & M50 for landscape and B&L.

Have a nice day!

Cheer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The M sensors are configured to perform optimally for M lenses ...... the SL sensor is configured to work well with almost anything you stick on the front of it. 

 

However ....... I think the issue is not the results ...... but how you get the results. 

 

The default LR or similar processing will always be different (*) so there will inevitably be observable image differences even in 'identical' images ..... but I have found a few tweaks usually makes them so similar that differentiation is almost impossible between the various 24mpx Leica cameras. 

 

The real difference is the image taking process ...... and that is down to personal taste and other factors such as size, flexibility, ease of use etc etc. 

 

(*) ..... is LR still using the M10 embedded profile or have Adobe produced and M10 one yet ???? That makes a big difference ...... the custom Adobe profile invariably desaturates compared to Leicas embedded profile. 

Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

(*) ..... is LR still using the M10 embedded profile or have Adobe produced and M10 one yet ???? That makes a big difference ...... the custom Adobe profile invariably desaturates compared to Leicas embedded profile. 

 

After I updated LR I get an adobe profile which is less warm/saturated - I still quite like the m10 profile though

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter,

 

It is a mantra that M lenses perform best on an M camera.  When the SL came out, both Sean Reid and Jono Slack came to the conclusion that some M lenses (notably the most recent ones like the 28 Summilux) perform better on the SL than on the M(240).  Whether that still holds for the M10, I'm not sure.

 

It is my estimation that the Noctilux performs better on the SL than the M9 or the M(240), and my other lenses perform as well if not better (21 Summilux-M ASPH, 28 Summilux-M ASPH, 50 Summilux-M ASPH, Noctilux 0.95 & 75 Summilux).  I see no advantage in using these lenses on an M camera, other than size and the rangefinder.  If you have older lenses (notably the first version of the 28 Summicron ASPH), then there might be an issue using this lens on the SL.

 

To my mind, this is really for pixel peepers.  

 

Cheers

John

 

 

yes i have tried older leica lens such as summarit 21mm. has very dark corner. unusable i say. 

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...