Returning to the M Body after High Hopes with the SL

[geopatriot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

From this forum and many others, I have my list of advantages about why I prefer to enter the world of Leica with an SL body + M lenses. But maybe because of a serious case of GAS, I have yet to see the convincing disadvantages

 

The main point for me to choose the M10 is to force myself to return to an older, style of more contemplative style of shooting. So, what are the disadvantages to shooting M lenses on an SL? Besides weight and size, what were the features and specs that caused you to give up on the SL and stick with an M body?

[mmradman]

Perhaps there are more M to SL converted than other way round, this is my M to SL transition.

 

I decided to get SL  before M10 became reality, i was using M240 at the time, mostly M with RF but also trying longer R lenses with EVF.  Key decider towards SL was frustration using longer R lenses with antiquated EVF.  I can focus my longest M lens well, APO Summicron 90mm, with optical RF or frame extra wide 21mm with external Optical Finder. 

 

I doubt that M10 combined with dedicated EVF provides near enough performance and handling of the SL EVF, maybe future M11, or M12.  In the end i sold M240 and got near new SL for 65% of the price of M10.  For RF experience only I use M246.   

 

I would say for M lenses only M camera is the best choice.

Edited March 23, 2018 by mmradman

[tom0511]

I could only think about a simpler user interface of the M. And an optical viewfinder where you see around the frame.

 

Like "back to the roots". However I find the M shines mainly with 35 and 50mm lenses.

 

Longer is hard to focus precise, and shorter is hard to frame correct.

 

I would not want to give up the SL for an M10. 

[chris_tribble]

To my embarrassment my brief second flirtation with an SL has come to the same sorry end as it did first time round. Last time I traded it in against an M10. This time it’s gone of to Ffordes ☹️

Reasons why?

1. As I am unwilling to lay out for the native lenses, I lose most of the benefits the SL affords. I’m sure it’s great with AF/IS lenses, but I don’t see it as good value as a full frame DSLR system compared with my 5D3 / L lens system. Canon (and Nikon) pro zooms are pretty damn good, and so much better value for money IMHO. If I was going to spend this sort of money on a system I’d go for MF digital.

2 MOST importantly for me, the SL has (again) failed to live up to what I was hoping for in terms of being an EVF platform for my M lenses. When I had the M240 the SL looked very good, and on longer glass it is true that the SL is useful (135 A-T, 90 APO Summicron). However, it’s not that much better than the Visoflex on the M10, and slower to focus and with wide lenses like the WATE I find it much slower and less accurate than the M10 with EVF. A further major frustration is focussing at infinity. With the 28 cron asph on the M focus is very fast and flawlessly accurate. On the SL I’ve had far too many shots at wider FLs that are soft!

3. I’d forgotten how big and heavy the SL is. It just doesn’t fit in with how I work - especially when in the hills or documenting quiet, intimate events.

I fully recognise that these are my experiences and that others may be happy with the SL.

However, having made a song and dance about buying back into the system, I thought I might as well share my experience of reversing rapidly out of the system again.

Overall moral? Leica make the worlds best rangefinder cameras. So long as I remember this I’ll not be disappointed!

Edited March 23, 2018 by chris_tribble

[bherman01545]

I have owned M Series Leica's for years, and have always been very pleased. Build quality, minimalistic, compact, etc. It is what 'drew me in' to Leica in the first place.

 

With that said, it has been becoming increasingly more difficult with my aging eyes and glasses to use the M. I mean, I can attain focus, but the experience was becoming entirely too 'fidgety' for my liking.

I sold my M240 bodies and lenses and took the plunge 100% into the SL system. 

 

First and foremost, I have no practical experience using M lenses on the SL, but have read many reports and reviews and most have stated that they were extremely pleased.

At least on par with their performance on the M series, with the exception of the 50 M Noctilux, which is much easier to attain sharp focus wide open on the SL.

 

From an absolute resolution standpoint, the SL lenses are the finest lenses that Leica has produced to date. I own a 24-90, 50 f/1.4 and 90-280 and can't fault them for anything (they are the best lenses that I've used on any system)

except their size and weight, but it is still manageable.

 

If someone already has a cache of M lenses and you don't mind manually focusing, you probably won't see any appreciable difference, especially in print.

[SiggiGun]

Interesting!

I'm now "in the middle of the way" after 35 years of "M only" I switched to "M AND SL",... for now. After asking : from M only to M OR SL, ... Here my first experience, but not sure if It is my last word

 

https://wordpress.com/post/siggigun.wordpress.com/2276 (in German, sorry)

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M and SL are not at all similar in use. The image quality will be almost the same. Use both and decide which you prefer.

[thighslapper]

From this forum and many others, I have my list of advantages about why I prefer to enter the world of Leica with an SL body + M lenses. But maybe because of a serious case of GAS, I have yet to see the convincing disadvantages

 

The main point for me to choose the M10 is to force myself to return to an older, style of more contemplative style of shooting. So, what are the disadvantages to shooting M lenses on an SL? Besides weight and size, what were the features and specs that caused you to give up on the SL and stick with an M body?

 Don't overlook the CL. M lenses work well. 

 

Native lenses are almost as good as the SL's and a much more compact package. 

 

The 'older more contemplative style of shooting' statement is almost as delusional as a bad case of GAS. 

 

Photographers attachment to camera brands and systems is frequently on a par with a religious conversion ...... and defence of it in the face of criticism can often be more from the heart than the head.

 

If you try a camera or camera system and have found things that irritate you in the first few days I guarantee you will be changing within the year. It will either suit or it won't, irrespective of what any reviewers or helpful folk on forums say. 

 

The SL has a number of deficiencies compared to its competitors, but I enjoy using it and it suits the type of photography I do. That is really all that matters. You will only find out by spending some time actually using the cameras you are interested in. 

Edited March 23, 2018 by thighslapper

[IkarusJohn]

I came to the conclusion that a digital camera based around the optical rangefinder was fundamentally flawed, and not in a good way. Also, it seemed to me that it is overpriced and under-supported by Leica. The weakest link in tha camera is the cheapest, crappiest piece of electronics which does not match the rest of the camera - brass top and bottom, rf system etc etc. we pay a lot for something more dispoable than the equivalent film Ms.

 

Don’t get me wrong, in the hand, I love my Monochrom, but the M lenses and the modern sensors out perform what the optical viewfinder has to offer.

 

The SL, conversely, is a proper digital camera, with Leica’s approach to user interface. Size, weight? That’s just physics. Great camera, great system. I resolved not to buy another digital M camera again (I guess until an M10 version of the M-D arrives with WiFi, EVF compatibility and moveable meter/focal point with joystick).

Edited March 23, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[LocalHero1953]

" older, style of more contemplative style of shooting" [of the M]

 

Not my experience: the absence of distractions from menu options, the direct controls falling under the hand, the instant optical viewfinder, the shutter that takes a shot immediately you press the button, all combine to make the M system quick and responsive, ideal for reacting quickly to changing situations.

Edited March 23, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[Irakly Shanidze]

I do not think that comparing M cameras and SL is even possible. These systems serve very different purposes.

 

For someone converting from a DSLR system SL is much simpler to get used to than M. When it comes to the professional work, even though 90% of assignments can be done with M (and this is exactly what I do), but the remaining 10% cannot. One could argue that now M10 offers all the conveniences of telephoto and wide-angle shooting, and this is somewhat true, the reality is, when you are on the clock, there is just no time for jury-rigging and coming up with "solutions". SL does everything saving you time and piece of mind. I am not even going into the topic of video where SL is almost as good as some production cine cameras (when combined with an HDMI recorder).

 

On the other hand, for someone who mostly does street and casual travel photography, SL is an overkill, and M camera is definitely a way to go.

[geopatriot]

" older, style of more contemplative style of shooting" [of the M]

 

Not my experience: the absence of distractions from menu options, the direct controls falling under the hand, the instant optical viewfinder, the shutter that takes a shot immediately you press the button, all combine to make the M system quick and responsive, ideal for reacting quickly to changing situations.

Thanks for this response.  That's one of the reasons I didn't write, "slower."  I wrote, "more contemplative."  More and more, I find that my Nikon DSLR takes care of everything and I tend to only focus on the composition.  I want to switch to Leica because of the glass.  I am attracted to the colors, rendering, bokeh and the "look."  I was thinking of SL AF for quite a few weeks and then I started to see the advantages of moving to the M system to force me to take control of my exposure, focus while removing distractions.  I was shooting manual throughout the 80s and 90s, so it's not a new way of working for me.

[jaapv]

I do not think that comparing M cameras and SL is even possible. These systems serve very different purposes.

 

For someone converting from a DSLR system SL is much simpler to get used to than M. When it comes to the professional work, even though 90% of assignments can be done with M (and this is exactly what I do), but the remaining 10% cannot. One could argue that now M10 offers all the conveniences of telephoto and wide-angle shooting, and this is somewhat true, the reality is, when you are on the clock, there is just no time for jury-rigging and coming up with "solutions". SL does everything saving you time and piece of mind. I am not even going into the topic of video where SL is almost as good as some production cine cameras (when combined with an HDMI recorder).

 

On the other hand, for someone who mostly does street and casual travel photography, SL is an overkill, and M camera is definitely a way to go.

 

 

...But in the  street and travel department, now faces serious competition from the CL

[geopatriot]

 Don't overlook the CL. M lenses work well. 

 

Native lenses are almost as good as the SL's and a much more compact package. 

 

The 'older more contemplative style of shooting' statement is almost as delusional as a bad case of GAS. 

 

Photographers attachment to camera brands and systems is frequently on a par with a religious conversion ...... and defence of it in the face of criticism can often be more from the heart than the head.

 

If you try a camera or camera system and have found things that irritate you in the first few days I guarantee you will be changing within the year. It will either suit or it won't, irrespective of what any reviewers or helpful folk on forums say. 

 

The SL has a number of deficiencies compared to its competitors, but I enjoy using it and it suits the type of photography I do. That is really all that matters. You will only find out by spending some time actually using the cameras you are interested in. 

I was initially attracted to the CL.  But, I want to upgrade from an APS-C Nikon DSLR sensor to full frame.  I also want to go to the next level of glass, i.e., faster lenses and more accessible bokeh.  From what I've gathered in my research, the APS-C sensor size is an inhibiting factor when it comes to bokeh.  I'm sure it takes fantastic pictures.  But, if I'm going to move to a new system, it should be a quantum leap in either quality, experience or preferably both. 

 

I don't know why my statement is delusional.  I was shooting manual focused, film cameras throughout the 80s and 90s and I'm tired of little plastic wheels that control my shutter and aperture.  I would also welcome taking control of my focus after using autofocus for the last 18 years.  What is delusional?  I've come back to the CL several times and I'm not very excited about their fairly slow lenses and lack of an aperture ring.  Ergonomics is not a delusion.  User interface not only refers to the software and menus.

 

I'm an American expat living in a former Soviet republic with no access to a world class camera store until I get to Munich in May.  So you can either indulge my forum inquiries or go on to the next post.  Thanks much for your input.

[geopatriot]

I do not think that comparing M cameras and SL is even possible. These systems serve very different purposes.

 

For someone converting from a DSLR system SL is much simpler to get used to than M. When it comes to the professional work, even though 90% of assignments can be done with M (and this is exactly what I do), but the remaining 10% cannot. One could argue that now M10 offers all the conveniences of telephoto and wide-angle shooting, and this is somewhat true, the reality is, when you are on the clock, there is just no time for jury-rigging and coming up with "solutions". SL does everything saving you time and piece of mind. I am not even going into the topic of video where SL is almost as good as some production cine cameras (when combined with an HDMI recorder).

 

On the other hand, for someone who mostly does street and casual travel photography, SL is an overkill, and M camera is definitely a way to go.

 

ბატონო ირაკლი, დიდი მადლობა. სწორია.  გეთანხმები. 

 

I was a photojournalist in the late 80s, but these days, photography is much more of a hobby/passion for me. I primarily shoot travel, landscapes and people.  How do you mean that the SL is overkill?  Sizewise?  It's actually cheaper than an M, and if you have to buy a viewfinder or EVF for wide lenses for the M, it's cheaper still.  

 

I'm switching today from a Nikon DSLR, but I shot manual focus for 15 years, so I'm not particularly afraid of the M.  My dad had rangefinders when I was growing up, as well as an assortment of other interesting and esoteric formats.

[jaapv]

Well, inhibiting factor for Bokeh is not quite correct. The Bokeh will be the same, as that is a property of the rendering of the lens. There will be a difference in DOF, which may be or not be of interest as it is related to the subject matter and subject distance.

You will also gain about one EV value in noise behaviour because of sensor size  and focal length AOV at the wide end, but that is about all.

[geopatriot]

Well, inhibiting factor for Bokeh is not quite correct. The Bokeh will be the same, as that is a property of the rendering of the lens. There will be a difference in DOF, which may be or not be of interest as it is related to the subject matter and subject distance.

You will also gain about one EV value in noise behaviour because of sensor size  and focal length AOV at the wide end, but that is about all.

At the risk of taking this post off into a completely undesired direction, I have to take issue with your comment, dear sir.  After the lens focal length and aperture, the sensor size has a direct impact on bokeh.  Considering that many of the the CL lenses are slower and the zooms are of the slower variable aperture, I stand by my comment that the CL SYSTEM may not be the best option for me.  The DOF provided by the SYSTEM is what makes them a lesser choice vs. the M lenses.

 

My original post was about the SL vs. the M10, having already put aside the CL.   Is your comment about the EV value related to the SL vs. CL or SL vs. M10?

 

Google:  blurry-backgrounds-big-sensors-and-bokeh

 

I don't think of Mr. Pogue as being an especially knowledgeable source on photography matters, but the research and references in the article are still valid.

Edited March 24, 2018 by geopatriot

[jaapv]

Bokeh is the out-of-focus rendering by a lens, not by a sensor. You are referring to depth of focus, which is indeed more shallow on the larger sensor.  .-And indeed with larger aperture, or shorter subject distance, or larger enlargements, etc.

 

My noise comment was related to sensor size. At equal sensor size, you'll find the M10 has a noise advantage over the SL. 

It also has a noticeable better Photographic Dynamic Range.

[thighslapper]

I was initially attracted to the CL.  But, I want to upgrade from an APS-C Nikon DSLR sensor to full frame.  I also want to go to the next level of glass, i.e., faster lenses and more accessible bokeh.  From what I've gathered in my research, the APS-C sensor size is an inhibiting factor when it comes to bokeh.  I'm sure it takes fantastic pictures.  But, if I'm going to move to a new system, it should be a quantum leap in either quality, experience or preferably both. 

 

I don't know why my statement is delusional.  I was shooting manual focused, film cameras throughout the 80s and 90s and I'm tired of little plastic wheels that control my shutter and aperture.  I would also welcome taking control of my focus after using autofocus for the last 18 years.  What is delusional?  I've come back to the CL several times and I'm not very excited about their fairly slow lenses and lack of an aperture ring.  Ergonomics is not a delusion.  User interface not only refers to the software and menus.

 

I'm an American expat living in a former Soviet republic with no access to a world class camera store until I get to Munich in May.  So you can either indulge my forum inquiries or go on to the next post.  Thanks much for your input.

 

 ...... no offence meant at all ....... just pointing out that we ALL have somewhat optimistic ideas of how any camera or lens is going to take our photography to 'another level' 

 

In reality it turns out that the tool that sits most comfortably in the hand is the one that produces the best results. Ideally the camera should be a barely noticeable extension of your eye and mind that you can use without thinking about it. 

 

That is where Leica wins out against a lot of the competition ...... whether you go M10 or SL depends on how you prefer to use a camera and the size and weight of the final system. Cost will end up much the same.

 

Like IKJ & Paul above, I prefer the simplicity of the SL and have liquidated my M, T & Q bodies in favour of a unified SL+CL system and a mix of M, R and SL/TL lenses. I tried the M10 ...... but the novelty and magic of Rangefinder photography was no longer there ......

 

I know the Munich store ..... in the times I have been it isn't that busy so you should be able to spend a few hours trying out various combinations of lenses and bodies. I suspect you will know quite quickly what you want when you hold and use it ........

Edited March 24, 2018 by thighslapper

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[scott kirkpatrick]

I think the APS-C frame size is getting an undeserved bad rap -- the best of the lenses are comparable to all but a few of the M lenses, and the sensors have been upgraded in the last year or two to the same dynamic range as the SL (but not quite as good as the M10).  See http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm for an interactive comparison and more data than you will ever need.

 

If you want control over Bokeh, to separate objects while still making their identities clear, not just turn the background into colorful mush, that can work just as well with an APS-C 1.4 or 2.0 lens as with an M lens.  Just keep the in focus plane a bit closer.