Jump to content

Should I trade my SL for the M 10?


jimleicam3

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After using the SL for the past 5 months, I am not completely sold on the idea of keeping the camera.  I started with an M3 moved to an M8 and a bunch of Canon gear.  Sold everything except the M3 and waited for an M10 which was delayed and delayed.  So last summer in need of a camera, coupled with the price drop, I went for the SL.  The SL is a nice camera, however, I only have M lenses and I feel that it is way too much camera when I can only use the M and A modes.  Used the 24-90 for a couple of days, but it is like carrying around a large brick.  Now Leica is offering a trade-in of the SL that I can apply to an M10.

  

So, do I trade the SL, or am I missing something about the SL?  On the forum pages, people are loving the SL, and find it way better than the M10.  I fear trading the SL and of course regretting it later.

 

Any advice would be great.  It would be cool to have both, but I can't justify having almost $12K in camera bodies alone.

 

Cheers

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH, I think you need to accept you made a mistake. You had an M, you wanted an M, but you bought an SL - which is a different beast altogether. Unless you can afford both AND have a use scenario for the SL, sell it and buy the M10.

I have the M240 and the SL, but I would never see the SL as a substitute for the M: I use the SL with native lenses for events, portraits etc, and the M for travel and out-and-about. Totally different use scenarios.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

After using the SL for the past 5 months, I am not completely sold on the idea of keeping the camera. I started with an M3 moved to an M8 and a bunch of Canon gear. Sold everything except the M3 and waited for an M10 which was delayed and delayed. So last summer in need of a camera, coupled with the price drop, I went for the SL. The SL is a nice camera, however, I only have M lenses and I feel that it is way too much camera when I can only use the M and A modes. Used the 24-90 for a couple of days, but it is like carrying around a large brick. Now Leica is offering a trade-in of the SL that I can apply to an M10.

 

So, do I trade the SL, or am I missing something about the SL? On the forum pages, people are loving the SL, and find it way better than the M10. I fear trading the SL and of course regretting it later.

 

Any advice would be great. It would be cool to have both, but I can't justify having almost $12K in camera bodies alone.

 

Cheers

Hi!

SL with Native len is good for event, activity ...

IMO, I have got both SL601 & M10 and SL 24-90/f2.8-4.0, M35 Lux Fle, M50 Apo, M75 Lux, R 180 f2.8. For most of case for portrait, street life, I have shoot both SL601 and M10 with M35 Lux and M75 Lux. This will help me not often change lens and not miss the moment capture!

Have a nice day!

Thanks

Edited by phongph
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had an M9 for a few years.  A friend offered me a great deal on a mint SL with the 24-90 so I bought it, knowing I could sell it for at least what he sold it to me for.  I really like the camera.  The autofocus was good, but not great with motion.  I sometimes struggle with the M9 focus, so I was excited about this.  I also really liked the EVF with my M lenses (Summilux 50mm ASPH, 90mm Elmarit-Mand Zeiss 25mm).  I enjoyed using the camera with my M lenses much more than the 24-90.  

 

I used it less than two weeks and made a decision to trade it for a new M10.  It seemed crazy, but I paid less for the SL & 24-90 than the price of a new M10 and I just had to think long and hard about what I really wanted.  In the end, the SL was just too big for my casual use, which ironically what actually brought me to Leica in the first place (small, high quality, beautiful IQ, full frame camera and excellent, fast lenses).  If it were a bit smaller and designed around M lenses only, I may have kept it.  But with the size it was, I just never could see myself carrying the big SL around.  Also, as good as the EVF is on the SL, I still prefer the optical viewfinder.  I have found my focus success is much, much higher with the M10 than the M9.  

 

If I could afford it, I would have kept the SL and bought the M10, but I can't even consider myself in the same league financially as most Leica owners and consider myself very fortunate to even have what I already have.  My M9 has been back to Leica since August for a sensor replacement.  Looking over my photos, I'm seriously wondering if I should just keep the M9 as I do like the pictures.  I have less success with the M9, but the successes are really impressive from what I am seeing.  That said, the M10 is just a wonderful camera.  So much nicer and easier to shoot.  

 

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!  Best of luck with your decision. 

Edited by jhgnag
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't like the native lenses and have M, I'd strongly recommend the M10.  I had the SL for a couple of months and ran it alongside M240s, but never really enjoyed it that much.  Getting rid of the SL and getting 2 M10s was the best move for me.  Getting a CL to see what it's like - waiting to be persuaded :).  In this case, the CL would only be to complement the Ms - not to replace.

Edited by chris_tribble
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While I own the M10, I see the SL as having identical sensor and image quality traits, but, with image stabilization, more accurate auto focus, an incredible viewfinder, and no parallax errors or frame line errors.  The SL probably also focuses closer as well.  In short, a camera that delivers a superb image quality at least on par with the M10, but with a high percentage ratio of potentially sharper images. That sounds like a Leica investment that would pay off and which you'd appreciate if you took a once in a lifetime trip to someplace like China, and desired to have as many great images as possible.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I own the M10, I see the SL as having identical sensor and image quality traits, but, with image stabilization, more accurate auto focus, an incredible viewfinder, and no parallax errors or frame line errors. The SL probably also focuses closer as well. In short, a camera that delivers a superb image quality at least on par with the M10, but with a high percentage ratio of potentially sharper images. That sounds like a Leica investment that would pay off and which you'd appreciate if you took a once in a lifetime trip to someplace like China, and desired to have as many great images as possible.

Image stabilization?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing you can be sure of is that if they are claiming that the SL is “way better than the M10”, they don’t understand what the M10 is, and therefore you shouldn’t be too influenced by their opinions.

 

But as I read it, most users do understand that they are simply different types of camera and which is better for you is best answered by you. It seems your instinct is trying to tell you what you really want to hear: go buy an M10.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

The M 10 is a monumental improvement viz the 240 and I am sure that you will not regret this decision.

Albert :D:D:D

Now that people have bedded down more with the M10, what image quality benefits do you see over the M240? It seems higher ISOs are better by about 2 stops, and the colours look great out of the M10 .....but I’m still curious about M10 vs M240 at lower ISO (say, < 640 ISO) .....for example, do you see better colour differentiation, better tonality, better pixel acuity etc from the M10? Or are those specific attributes very similar between the M240 and M10? Edited by Jon Warwick
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I own the M10, I see the SL as having identical sensor and image quality traits, but, with image stabilization, more accurate auto focus, an incredible viewfinder, and no parallax errors or frame line errors. The SL probably also focuses closer as well. In short, a camera that delivers a superb image quality at least on par with the M10, but with a high percentage ratio of potentially sharper images. That sounds like a Leica investment that would pay off and which you'd appreciate if you took a once in a lifetime trip to someplace like China, and desired to have as many great images as possible.

For traveling these are the most clear moments where the M10 is the best choice. Why then would you ever have given up the Canons and Nikons? And why do you need a sport-auto-focus for travelling in China? And the SL compares to a Pro DSLR.

 

By the way, I still have my 5D Mk IV with plenty of kenses and I could not be without that Equipment. But for traveling I have fully changed zo the M10 and 3 wonderfully small lenses.

Edited by Alex U.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a slightly similar history. 

I had 2 M-P 240's which I traded up for 2 SL's. I was doing video, so that worked out. 

Then photojournalistic assignments came along, and having like you, only M lenses, I could not imagine using them on the SL in a fast moving situation.

So...

I let go of one SL, keeping it for architectural, video 4K, and  telephoto work. .... and got an M10.

I also looked at the 24-90 and passed on it because of the size.

If you don't need the SL for specific .... technical work .... dump it  .... and get an M10.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For traveling these are the most clear moments where the M10 is the best choice. Why then would you ever have given up the Canons and Nikons? And why do you need a sport-auto-focus for travelling in China? And the SL compares to a Pro DSLR.

 

By the way, I still have my 5D Mk IV with plenty of kenses and I could not be without that Equipment. But for traveling I have fully changed zo the M10 and 3 wonderfully small lenses.

"In China", as I gave as an example, there are many photographic situations where quick autofocus will aid in a keeper photograph that might otherwise be missed with manual focus.  (You'll probably counter my argument with zone focus and the ease of manual focus). The Chinese are not always so tolerant of photographs by anyone, to include foreigners, and a paparazzi type photograph, offered by the the autofocus SL, can be helpful in those situations.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"In China", as I gave as an example, there are many photographic situations where quick autofocus will aid in a keeper photograph that might otherwise be missed with manual focus.  (You'll probably counter my argument with zone focus and the ease of manual focus). The Chinese are not always so tolerant of photographs by anyone, to include foreigners, and a paparazzi type photograph, offered by the the autofocus SL, can be helpful in those situations.

I believe that you are right. It depend on what you shoot. Would it not make more sense to have a small 1“ camera for these situations rather than having to carry a heavy SL all the time?

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...