FlashGordonPhotography Posted September 28, 2017 Share #21 Posted September 28, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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? Some lenses are easier to focus on the SL. Some are easier on the M. generally the longer the lens the easier it becomes on the SL and also the faster the aperture in use. The Noctilux is easier to focus on the SL. The 50 Summicron is about the same on either. The WATE is much easier on the M. Any lens at f4 is easier on the M. Gordon Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 Hi FlashGordonPhotography, Take a look here Since getting M10 the SL is collecting dust. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
FlashGordonPhotography Posted September 28, 2017 Share #22 Posted September 28, 2017 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. Not always. I don't anyone who has used either a Noctilux or 135 APO on both would think the M is easier with these two lenses. Not by a long shot. Gordon 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillbeers15 Posted September 28, 2017 Share #23 Posted September 28, 2017 Not always. I don't anyone who has used either a Noctilux or 135 APO on both would think the M is easier with these two lenses. Not by a long shot. Gordon Agree. Using rangefinder to focus the Noctilux was a 'hit and miss' situation for me. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted September 28, 2017 Share #24 Posted September 28, 2017 I've used Ms since 2002, the SL since the spring of 2016. My life is now divided in a quite predictable way. I never use the SL for street photography, for walking around the city. But I've now pretty much dropped the M or Monochrom from the travel bag when I am going out west and shooting landscapes. (I just brought along the Mono with the SL for a trip to Yellowstone National Park. Never used it.) So if you can afford having both an SL and an M, it's very easy, in my experience, to divide their use. For me, SL is for landscapes, still lifes around the house or nearby, some portraits. And the M is the camera I carry around in the environment in which I life 5/6ths of the year. Love 'em both. Horses for courses. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted September 28, 2017 Share #25 Posted September 28, 2017 (edited) I've used Ms since 2002, the SL since the spring of 2016. My life is now divided in a quite predictable way. I never use the SL for street photography, for walking around the city. But I've now pretty much dropped the M or Monochrom from the travel bag when I am going out west and shooting landscapes. (I just brought along the Mono with the SL for a trip to Yellowstone National Park. Never used it.) So if you can afford having both an SL and an M, it's very easy, in my experience, to divide their use. For me, SL is for landscapes, still lifes around the house or nearby, some portraits. And the M is the camera I carry around in the environment in which I life 5/6ths of the year. Love 'em both. Horses for courses. I have a different pattern, but adopt a similar separation of use: M for travel & street, SL for sessions & events. And I've added the TL2 to the mix for lightweight social & family use. I have just bought a Summaron-M 35/2.8 (1960 vintage), delivered today; after checking it out for an hour or so, I realised I had used it on all three bodies without thinking*. The SL & TL lenses don't fit on the M body, but otherwise it is remarkable how well integrated the whole Leica ecosystem is, mixing and matching lenses and bodies across the range and across the years. It's this sort of engineering that brought me to Leica in the early eighties. *The only one that it felt slightly awkward on was the SL - it's not quite so natural finding the small focus ring on a large body. Edited September 28, 2017 by LocalHero1953 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anika Posted September 28, 2017 Share #26 Posted September 28, 2017 I use M10 and Q right now and both are better then any SL could ever be Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted September 28, 2017 Share #27 Posted September 28, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) The WATE is much easier on the M. To focus but not to frame. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted September 28, 2017 Share #28 Posted September 28, 2017 I use M10 and Q right now and both are better then any SL could ever be Did you ever use the SL ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anika Posted September 28, 2017 Share #29 Posted September 28, 2017 once, over one week - just the SL with 24-90 SL lens - no other camera Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 28, 2017 Share #30 Posted September 28, 2017 Not always. I don't anyone who has used either a Noctilux or 135 APO on both would think the M is easier with these two lenses. Not by a long shot. Gordon I don't have a Noctilux, but the 135 APO was never any trouble on the M for me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillbeers15 Posted September 29, 2017 Share #31 Posted September 29, 2017 If you only use M lenses, I'm absolutely certain the SL will fad away after a while and you will ho back to using the M as I do not see any significant advantages in using SL over M other than Noctilux. However if you are a R lens user or and AF lens user, the rational will be the reverse. Ultimate winner is Leica, where users buy on impulse and ditch later when the novelty fads. Strategically Leica is right to produce more variants than the M and keeping the M purely as a manual focused rangefinder digital camera. I am also the other variants will come and go depending on sales while the M stays on as the corner stone product. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted September 29, 2017 Share #32 Posted September 29, 2017 To focus but not to frame. Agreed. But I know turn on live view. Focus using the RF and then move to the EVF for framing and recomposing. Not perfect but quicker than magnify/fiddle on the SL by a little bit. Gordon Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted September 29, 2017 Share #33 Posted September 29, 2017 I don't have a Noctilux, but the 135 APO was never any trouble on the M for me. Me either. I hope I didn't imply it was difficult or impossible on an M. Especially on the M10 which is easier than the M9/M240. But easier again on the SL. The full frame view really helps compared to the smaller RF frame lines. Gordon 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted September 29, 2017 Share #34 Posted September 29, 2017 If you only use M lenses, I'm absolutely certain the SL will fad away after a while and you will ho back to using the M as I do not see any significant advantages in using SL over M other than Noctilux. However if you are a R lens user or and AF lens user, the rational will be the reverse. Ultimate winner is Leica, where users buy on impulse and ditch later when the novelty fads. Strategically Leica is right to produce more variants than the M and keeping the M purely as a manual focused rangefinder digital camera. I am also the other variants will come and go depending on sales while the M stays on as the corner stone product. There's a whole bunch of things made easier with an EVF. Live exposure and exposure accuracy being the main ones. The artificial horizon and absolute framing accuracy is also nice to have on occasion. Offset nicely by size weight and battery life..... And the advantages of RF photography. Gordon 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillbeers15 Posted September 29, 2017 Share #35 Posted September 29, 2017 Well Gordon, I was driving the point that there is no compline reason to keep the SL for M lens users. Unlike AF capability, which the M does not offer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted September 29, 2017 Author Share #36 Posted September 29, 2017 Well Gordon, I was driving the point that there is no compline reason to keep the SL for M lens users. Unlike AF capability, which the M does not offer. My reason is that I am not as fast and confident with the M10 as I am with the SL with M lenses, so I'm keeping the SL for as long as necessary. Also I still have the 90-280 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted September 29, 2017 Share #37 Posted September 29, 2017 I have and use both the SL and (now) the M-D. When I bought the SL, I had the M-P. The SL eclipsed use of all my other digital cameras, including the M-P. I preferred its excellent viewfinder and its controls/ergonomics over anything else I had ... never mind that it simply took photos that were more pleasing to me, immediately, than all my other cameras. I bought the M-D mostly because I'd said that if Leica ever produced a real production version of the M Edition 60, I'd buy one. Well, I was right: it immediately became my favorite M and resurrected my joy in Leica M cameras. But it does NOT out-pace the SL in use. I've now sold off everything but the SL and M-D of my digital bodies. The SL is my main camera: it can do anything I want to do in photography. I use the two SL zooms along with a small assortment of my favorite Leica R lenses on the SL and am delighted with it. I use the M-D when I want a more compact camera and don't need quite the extensive versatility of the SL. I've reduced my M mount lenses as well to a small set that I like using on it. I compared the M-D to the M10 body some time ago, and still prefer the M-D. That's all I need or want. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted September 29, 2017 Share #38 Posted September 29, 2017 Well Gordon, I was driving the point that there is no compline reason to keep the SL for M lens users. Unlike AF capability, which the M does not offer. I was talking about the SL with M lenses. The advantages of the EVF work with manual lenses. Those advantages might be a reason for *some* to prefer M lenses on the SL. I'm just pointing that out. As I've previously stated I don't particularity like using most M lenses on the SL. I don't like the balance. Gordon Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted September 30, 2017 Share #39 Posted September 30, 2017 For me the SL has totally replaced my M cameras for M lenses. I never felt the need to buy the dedicated SL lenses. As long there will be no M with a equivalent quality viewfinder, it will stay like that. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted October 2, 2017 Share #40 Posted October 2, 2017 Not always. I don't anyone who has used either a Noctilux or 135 APO on both would think the M is easier with these two lenses. Not by a long shot. Gordon Apologies for contradicting you, Gordon, but you do: me. I can focus my (f/1) Noctilux wide open much faster and more reliably on my M10 than my SL although that's probably down to two reasons. 1) the M10's OVF/RF is exceptional (and a definite improvement on earlier models except perhaps the M3), and 2) I have a tendency to magnify the image on the SL because the little chap on my shoulder always whispers to me that magnifying the image in the EVF will help nail the thin plane of focus but of course that slows the process down. I accept that the latter is my habit/problem and that I could probably focus more quickly by not magnifying but at the likely expense of hit rate. Pete. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.