After eight months of using the SL, going back to an M seems impossible

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think you are missing the point.

It has been this way ever since rangefinders existed next to SLR cameras. The experience and technique is different, so rangefinder cameras are built for those who prefer this.

Mirrorless/SLR cameras are for those who prefer mirrorless/SLR cameras. [...]

 

My feeling is you're missing the point too so i guess our point is different. Some people like yours truly are interested in lenses in the first place.  Cameras are just digital backs plus a VF for them. Cameras change, lenses remain. The strength of M lenses is they can be used on both RF and TTL cameras. Mirrorless cameras are changing the game from this viewpoint. 

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[scott kirkpatrick]

I'm cycling between CL, SL and M10, and enjoy the variety, as it keeps me a bit sharper.  The difference between CL/M10 and SL is pretty clear.  The first two are pretty inconspicuous, easy to carry, can do many things well, but not everything.  The SL can do anything I ask it to, but takes more effort to get it there.  Using SL lenses like the 90-280 SL or the long Rs on the CL makes sense sometimes but confuses this simple distinction.  The M10 helps me to frame things a little better, but loses the lower right corner of the frame.  I can hand off the CL to anyone and let them use it with good results (and I frequently do).  What's the big deal?

 

Has anyone been following the leica-bashing/leica-fondling pole dance on TOP?  I've started to draft a response a few times, but have given up.

Edited June 3, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick

[Jeff S]

Has anyone been following the leica-bashing/leica-fondling pole dance on TOP? I've started to draft a response a few times, but have given up.

Yep. I’m always a bit surprised that Mike dismisses the viewing experience of the M as some archaic tech, seemingly without considering or appreciating any advantage compared to any other viewing systems. And doesn’t accept that others feel differently for reasons other than brand loyalty. (Ironic given that I first followed him in his magazine days when he was a ‘Leica guy’.) Good that he has his own preferences, but he does like stirring things up with Leica posts....quite intentional.

 

Jeff

[AlanJW]

I'm cycling between CL, SL and M10, and enjoy the variety, as it keeps me a bit sharper.  The difference between CL/M10 and SL is pretty clear.  The first two are pretty inconspicuous, easy to carry, can do many things well, but not everything.  The SL can do anything I ask it to, but takes more effort to get it there.  Using SL lenses like the 90-280 SL or the long Rs on the CL makes sense sometimes but confuses this simple distinction.  The M10 helps me to frame things a little better, but loses the lower right corner of the frame.  I can hand off the CL to anyone and let them use it with good results (and I frequently do).  What's the big deal?

 

Has anyone been following the leica-bashing/leica-fondling pole dance on TOP?  I've started to draft a response a few times, but have given up.

I "cycle" also, but with a Q thrown in too.  The systems are complementary IMHO, not "one or the other".   Surely the SL is not as inconspicuous as the others, but I find it very easy to use with M lenses.  An SL with a M lens is not as steathy as an M10 or CL but it isn't too bad either.  I started a long time ago with rangefinders, but I have come to appreciate EVFs as well and some days I prefer the EVF and some days I prefer the OVF.  Some of it is what I am trying to do, and some of it is my old eyes do better focusing with EVFs.   I think Leica is being smart to offer products with different appeals.  For photographers, "one size fits all" has never worked.

[Jeff S]

Yep. I’m always a bit surprised that Mike dismisses the viewing experience of the M as some archaic tech, seemingly without considering or appreciating any advantage compared to any other viewing systems. And doesn’t accept that others feel differently for reasons other than brand loyalty. (Ironic given that I first followed him in his magazine days when he was a ‘Leica guy’.) Good that he has his own preferences, but he does like stirring things up with Leica posts....quite intentional.

 

Jeff

I see that Mike has followed up with a new post today, presenting a balanced view on RF pros and cons. The fact that he’s always known this just reinforces my belief that he likes to stir the Leica pot. I think it’s the price that sets him off.

 

Jeff

[tom0511]

I just recenty rebought a M10 since I missed the simplicity. I now have shot itfor a couple of days and liked the rangefinder focusing an d also the optical viewfinder, and the simplicity. I hd more fun with the M than using the SL. And it felt very spontanious.

 

BUT in regards of exposure, framing, focusing there is just more control to get the shot with the SL. I can focus the rangefinder pretty good, but now way to hit shots of people as reliable as I do with the SL. And exposure metering with the M is more "tricky" as well.

 

In the end I feel the M to be the more spontanious one, which you also can see in some shots (less perfect composed but its of great help for me to constantly see the subject and the smaller camera+lens combo make me feel less as a photographer and more to be part of the group.

The SL allows for the technically more controlled image though IMO.

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just recenty rebought a M10 since I missed the simplicity. I now have shot itfor a couple of days and liked the rangefinder focusing an d also the optical viewfinder, and the simplicity. I hd more fun with the M than using the SL. And it felt very spontanious.

 

BUT in regards of exposure, framing, focusing there is just more control to get the shot with the SL. I can focus the rangefinder pretty good, but now way to hit shots of people as reliable as I do with the SL. And exposure metering with the M is more "tricky" as well.

 

In the end I feel the M to be the more spontanious one, which you also can see in some shots (less perfect composed but its of great help for me to constantly see the subject and the smaller camera+lens combo make me feel less as a photographer and more to be part of the group.

The SL allows for the technically more controlled image though IMO.

 

 

Thats pretty much exactly how I feel - when I want precise, predictable results the SL just nails it. When I want to challenge myself and be surprised, the M is a better choice. But it's a lot of $$ to tie up for those times.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I see that Mike has followed up with a new post today, presenting a balanced view on RF pros and cons. The fact that he’s always known this just reinforces my belief that he likes to stir the Leica pot. I think it’s the price that sets him off.

 

Jeff

 

I think he just wants to stir the pot a bit. And in the camera world mentioning the red dot is the way to do that. It seems to get people commenting. In reality he likes rangefinders and recommends a Leica for his OCOLOY challenge.

 

Pot stirring is OK. I still think if I took his Fuji away and gave him a loaner M10 for a month he'd stir in the other direction.

 

Gordon

[scott kirkpatrick]

I think he just wants to stir the pot a bit. And in the camera world mentioning the red dot is the way to do that. It seems to get people commenting. In reality he likes rangefinders and recommends a Leica for his OCOLOY challenge.

 

Pot stirring is OK. I still think if I took his Fuji away and gave him a loaner M10 for a month he'd stir in the other direction.

 

Gordon

Challenging him to use an M10 for a month would be interesting.  But he lives in the Finger Lakes now, not in Washington, New York or even Wisconsin, all of which have peoplescapes quite different than the Amish country that he has moved to.  When I visited him last summer he was talking about getting more embedded in the local community, but his pictures don't reflect that just yet.  Maybe when he returns his B&H Sony loaner, Ken Tanaka will gift him an M10 for a month and we'll see...

Edited June 3, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick

[Jeff S]

I think he just wants to stir the pot a bit. And in the camera world mentioning the red dot is the way to do that. It seems to get people commenting. In reality he likes rangefinders and recommends a Leica for his OCOLOY challenge.

 

Pot stirring is OK. I still think if I took his Fuji away and gave him a loaner M10 for a month he'd stir in the other direction.

 

Gordon

He mentions the one camera/lens challenge in the recent post. And, sure, he’d love it if you gave him an M10 to use. But, as he says, he wants one for $600, not $7295. The price is the crux of his pot stirring, and I agree it’s to provoke interest and comments. So far in the last post, he features only 2 reader comments, both of which amp up the Leica criticism.

 

Jeff

[lx1713]

I believe every thinking photographer needs a few intense and exclusive years with a rangefinder. Thereafter, every camera and lens has a reference you come back to.

 

Sooner or later Leica will bring an EVF that exceeds the rangefinder at it's focusing accuracy (expanded view, higher refresh rate, etc) but a rangefinder is still a rangefinder in it's essential shooting experience.

[LD_50]

I believe every thinking photographer needs a few intense and exclusive years with a rangefinder. Thereafter, every camera and lens has a reference you come back to.

 

This would exclude sports, wildlife, and a lot of landscape photography. It seems pretty pointless to me.

 

I shot with an MP 240 and Sony RX1 for a year or two before buying the SL but only because this fit my typical shooting style.

[lx1713]

This would exclude sports, wildlife, and a lot of landscape photography. It seems pretty pointless to me.

 

I shot with an MP 240 and Sony RX1 for a year or two before buying the SL but only because this fit my typical shooting style.

 

There are places where sports, wildlife and landscape photography are almost impossible to experience daily but I understand where you are coming from. It's just that rangefinders are fundamentally so different that it did informed my skill set considerably. If those are what thrilled me, I will go live in places with those in abundance. I slept on the floor of a studio for 6 months because I wanted to be a photographer. So my dad kicked me out of the house    

 

I talking about photography skills rather than subject. You can shoot any subject once you have certain fundamental skills. The rangefinder is somewhat special to me despite my moving completely away from it except for the 2 M lenses I still have.

Edited June 4, 2018 by lx1713

[tom0511]

For me it has been 0ver 20 years with rangefinders, often realizing the shortcomings and getting other equipment and then coming back again (for certain things) and back and forth. I find still today it is sometimes a relief to only have to set few basic settings (aparture, ISO, eventually exp time), focus, klick klack.

And to see the subject real time in real light and without any break/black out and even whats happening around. I think it works best for 28-50 max.75 mm.

And then there are times when I enjoy the fast and accurate focusing of the 75/2.0 on the SL. 

I think different approach with different process and way of thinking.

[jaapv]

This would exclude sports, wildlife, and a lot of landscape photography. It seems pretty pointless to me.

 

I shot with an MP 240 and Sony RX1 for a year or two before buying the SL but only because this fit my typical shooting style.

I have been doing wildlife and landscape (and not too badly, I think) with M cameras since 1974/1988. Of course I made sidesteps to other systems on the way, but I cannot say that I found it an impossibility, quite the opposite, it was a special style of shooting. Even if I used an R for my long lenses, I always took an M for the landscape shots. Otherwise: Visoflex 3

[LD_50]

There are places where sports, wildlife and landscape photography are almost impossible to experience daily but I understand where you are coming from. It's just that rangefinders are fundamentally so different that it did informed my skill set considerably. If those are what thrilled me, I will go live in places with those in abundance. I slept on the floor of a studio for 6 months because I wanted to be a photographer. So my dad kicked me out of the house

It’s not the rangefinder itself that builds skills in my opinion.

 

It’s the restriction to use manual exposure and prime lenses that can build a photographer’s skill set. This can be done with just about any camera.

[trickness]

It’s not the rangefinder itself that builds skills in my opinion.

 

It’s the restriction to use manual exposure and prime lenses that can build a photographer’s skill set. This can be done with just about any camera.

EXACTLY! And that’s how I use my M lenses on my SL, fully manual. Feels like an M on steroids.

[Steve McGarrett]

I believe every thinking photographer needs a few intense and exclusive years with a rangefinder. Thereafter, every camera and lens has a reference you come back to.

 

Sooner or later Leica will bring an EVF that exceeds the rangefinder at it's focusing accuracy (expanded view, higher refresh rate, etc) but a rangefinder is still a rangefinder in it's essential shooting experience.

 

To me, it's already happened.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[lx1713]

Let me focus a little better 

 

I rarely use auto, in fact I've only used Aperture priority on the SL twice.

I shot with large format cameras for 12 years. Totally manual camera, swings, tilts, yaw, focus, exposure. All totally manually done.

As a press photographer, I shot with the FM with 3 primes 21, 35 and 85. Totally manual.

 

I find it easier to shoot in manual. It's just getting exposure right. Right? After 5,000 (transparencies) - 40,000 exposures a year for 30 years, it's a reasonable skill to get right (80% of the time, I'm getting a little lazy) in the first 2 - 3 years. 

 

Prime lenses. What do they do for you? Train you to get your composition right and locate where you should stand for that composition. After the first 10,000 shots, it should be reasonably trained into us.

 

Depth of field, what should it do for you? Teach you to tell the story with sufficient context. There are times for a Noctilux and times you just whip out the iPhone.

 

What did the rangefinder teach me? It merely honed a sense of the moment. To go where and when the moment will happen. It can happen with any camera, true. With me it was the rangefinder. After 20+ years as a professional before the rangefinder I thought it might be a meaningful consideration for a photographer to spend a few years on it    It's just a delight one shouldn't deprive oneself of.

 

It’s not the rangefinder itself that builds skills in my opinion.

It’s the restriction to use manual exposure and prime lenses that can build a photographer’s skill set. This can be done with just about any camera.

[lx1713]

To me, it's already happened.

 

It could be and will be better and you will be happy it does  . The sensor is under a great deal stress of multiple tasks that it is asked to do. Metering, focusing, adjusting automatically to subject brightness, pre focusing, image preview, etc.

A rangefinder just does what it does transmitting mechanically one instruction. The shutter curtain just does that one thing, timing the shutter. And so on.

 

But as you say it's already happened at a satisfactory level to please you and to a large part myself. I just wait.