Jump to content

Since getting M10 the SL is collecting dust


dancook

Recommended Posts

Quite literally!

 

It's just new toy syndrome; you'll come back to her eventually.

 

:) I've not actually used the M10 much either, what with being under the weather and all the building work going on in this house - which accounts for the copious amounts of dust in the house... nothing the SL can't shrug off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

buy an SL when it is first launched and sell it to buy M10 when the M10 is released,....all because only use M lenses on SL, no significant differentiation between SL & M application, Eventually one needs to fad away. Well when SL2 gets released with better AF reliability and performance but the crowd again will insist on only using manual focus lenses on SL2 and eventually the same sinerio happens again after the M11 appears....Leica will benefit more finally. Still a good thing for the sustainability of the brand.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious for those who have both the M10 and SL...

 

The focus with M lenses is so easy on the SL using M lenses, at least for me. I have never been a manual focus user till now. Is focusing the M10 as easy and accurate as the SL?

 

I see people have referenced alignment of the M bodies being needed at times. One of the reasons I love the SL so much is the accuracy of the EVF and focus is spot on. When I accompany that with that with the ability to AF the SL, I don't see the appeal of the M.

 

Is the appeal only the smaller size versus the SL?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One does not have to be an SL owner to answer this question. The attraction of optical viewfinder/rangefinder focusing versus EVF focusing is a highly personal preference. It cannot be said whether one is easier than the other. Both take practice, the rangefinder method might have a bit longer learning curve.

 

The real question is: Do you prefer to look at a "finished" image on a screen, or do you want to see a slice of the real world in front of you?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One does not have to be an SL owner to answer this question. The attraction of optical viewfinder/rangefinder focusing versus EVF focusing is a highly personal preference. It cannot be said whether one is easier than the other. Both take practice, the rangefinder method might have a bit longer learning curve.

 

The real question is: Do you prefer to look at a "finished" image on a screen, or do you want to see a slice of the real world in front of you?

 

Interesting way of putting it...

 

I must say though, that even though the image looks the same as it would once it comes out of the SL.. it's no where near finished. I guess there are many who do only minimal editing... but that's

not me. I want the most accurate focus I can achieve, and the SL is great in that regard. Both AF and MF. I realize that action/sports are a whole different ball game, but that's not what I shoot.

 

Coming only from Nikon... I am blown away by the EVF in the SL. With Nikon I always obsessed over accuracy of the 1.4 primes at close focus. I took many of my lenses to Nikon to get them calibrated.

 

Now... I never even think about it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

buy an SL when it is first launched and sell it to buy M10 when the M10 is released,....all because only use M lenses on SL, no significant differentiation between SL & M application, Eventually one needs to fad away. Well when SL2 gets released with better AF reliability and performance but the crowd again will insist on only using manual focus lenses on SL2 and eventually the same sinerio happens again after the M11 appears....Leica will benefit more finally. Still a good thing for the sustainability of the brand.

 

 

Oh, please don't mention an SL2. I have had my SL for only a few months, and I don't want to deal with the inevitable GAS when a new model is released. The SL could be a longterm camera for me, if I can only keep my eyes forward and enjoy the fantastic camera that I already own. And for the record, I am using it with MF lenses exclusively at this point.

 

With regard to the M10, I have no interest in rangefinder focusing, regardless of how good the IQ may be, and I doubt that the IQ is meaningfully better than the SL's.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve used m and sl. And coming from mirrorless to m is pain. So many missed shot with f1.1-f1.4 lens. Now i only bring m camera when i’m shooting alone without any company. It allow me to slow down and to be distracted with friend or any other companies. SL is when you want to go fast.

And that is where experience comes in. A rangefinder is the fastest way of using a manual lens - if you have trained yourself in its use.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting way of putting it...

 

I must say though, that even though the image looks the same as it would once it comes out of the SL.. it's no where near finished. I guess there are many who do only minimal editing... but that's

not me. I want the most accurate focus I can achieve, and the SL is great in that regard. Both AF and MF. I realize that action/sports are a whole different ball game, but that's not what I shoot.

 

Coming only from Nikon... I am blown away by the EVF in the SL. With Nikon I always obsessed over accuracy of the 1.4 primes at close focus. I took many of my lenses to Nikon to get them calibrated.

 

Now... I never even think about it.

Note that I said "finished" not finished. Obviously, we want to post-process our images.

The point is that an OVF/RF will give you the scene as you look at it in real life. Foreground, background, framelines, etc.

In an EVF it is abstracted by Bokeh, DOF, a sense of exposure and contrast, etc.

 

With an M you are snipping pieces out of reality, with a mirrorless you are choosing images.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that I said "finished" not finished. Obviously, we want to post-process our images.

The point is that an OVF/RF will give you the scene as you look at it in real life. Foreground, background, framelines, etc.

In an EVF it is abstracted by Bokeh, DOF, a sense of exposure and contrast, etc.

 

With an M you are snipping pieces out of reality, with a mirrorless you are choosing images.

 

 

You should work for Leica :) A great endorsement for the M bodies.

Edited by jaapv
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, please don't mention an SL2. I have had my SL for only a few months, and I don't want to deal with the inevitable GAS when a new model is released. The SL could be a longterm camera for me, if I can only keep my eyes forward and enjoy the fantastic camera that I already own. And for the record, I am using it with MF lenses exclusively at this point.

 

With regard to the M10, I have no interest in rangefinder focusing, regardless of how good the IQ may be, and I doubt that the IQ is meaningfully better than the SL's.

Sentiment wise, I'm with you. But the way the digital cameras are designed and built will mean a shorter product life cycle, either due to limited life span of electronic components or operating system. Moreover as a business strategy & sustainablility, new & improved features will replace the current in not so distant future. I figured that there is no way of resisting change and so decided to embrace it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious for those who have both the M10 and SL...

 

The focus with M lenses is so easy on the SL using M lenses, at least for me. I have never been a manual focus user till now. Is focusing the M10 as easy and accurate as the SL?

 

I see people have referenced alignment of the M bodies being needed at times. One of the reasons I love the SL so much is the accuracy of the EVF and focus is spot on. When I accompany that with that with the ability to AF the SL, I don't see the appeal of the M.

 

Is the appeal only the smaller size versus the SL?

Both SL and M10 are lovely cameras in concept and in our hands. To me, the M10 has just return to become a 'purist' compact manual camera with a wonderful FF sensor for me to couple it with the range of second to none M prime lenses. Wonderful camera package? Yes, it feels to right with an M in my hand and the compact yet fast prime glasses! In landscape, portraits, macro & street photography, the M10 with fast prime leica glass is my choice. Limited application due to manual focus and not suitable for action & sports photograph? Yes! So to me, the SL is an extension of my photography range into sports & action application with AF capability & the convenience of both zooms. I also have a choice to continue shooting in not so ideal weather situation when an SL + native zoom offers me the weather proof piece of mind and no need to swap lenses under hush environment. The manual focus Noctilux and 21lux also fits the SL like gloves on hand ergonomically and not to mention the easier than M10 focusing for Noctilux. That is how I use and have the coexistence of both M10 & SL. Interestingly, my SL still gets used much more than my M10 even though the M10 novelty has yet to be worn off me. Perhaps I'm still trying to familiarize myself with the AF settings with respect to different background and lighting and perhaps I'm still excited to capture an action well focused even when my eye and reflexes struggle to keep the subject within the frame. Wherelse, my M10 feels like an old friend always there when I need it.

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...