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

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When I first got my SL I had an MP 240, which I almost kept because I really did love rangefinder shooting and have had M’s on and off for 20 years. But I did sell it to fund a lens purchase and have been using the SL exclusively since then with M glass.

 

Yesterday I went to B&H and checked out the 16-35 on the SL, they have a demo but none to buy yet. Because I have been using nothing but M lenses on the SL, I found the 16 to 35 comically large and completely alien. As much as I would love to get the image quality of one of the autofocus native SL lenses on the SL body, the process of using M glass and the EVF Is just so wonderful and compact. As much as I would like to get the best out of the SL, I just can’t get past the size of the glass.

 

And then I picked up an M 10 with a 35 Summicron mounted. It felt so tiny compared to the SL, a bit toylike. I forgot what rangefinder focusing was like, it felt strange not getting the instant gratification of the exposure and depth of field through the EVF. I know this is going to piss some people off, but I really feel like you pay more for the M and get a lot less then the SL. I understand the appeal of less is more, the minimal design and simplicity of use. But I find the SL to be even simpler and satisfyingly minimal too.

 

I’ve seen more than a few comments with people saying they wish there was an M with an EVF integrated, that that would be the ultimate M. I think for those people, They should just buy an SL and use M glass on it. Sure the body is a little bit bigger, but the whole SL shooting experience with M glass just feels....evolved.

 

Anyway I really wanted to love the M, thought it might be fun to have a second body, but for me, I think the SL with M glass has really retired my desire for a rangefinder.

 

Has anybody else out there tried to go back to an M and found themselves spoiled by the SL?

Edited June 2, 2018 by trickness

[LD_50]

An M with EVF would be a better shooting experience than the SL with M glass if someone desires the EVF.

 

No adapter, lighter, better ergonomics with the small lenses, simpler interface, no unnecessary buttons, etc.

 

I have an MP 240 and SL. I have the 16-35, 24-90, 90-280, and 50 for the SL and I no longer see a reason to shoot M lenses on it. I shoot those on the M if I want a more portable package.

[Advertisement]

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

[Einst_Stein]

M with EVF and L mount is coming on June 14. May be called CM.

[lct]

[...] I’ve seen more than a few comments with people saying they wish there was an M with an EVF integrated, that that would be the ultimate M. I think for those people, They should just buy an SL and use M glass on it. Sure the body is a little bit bigger, but the whole SL shooting experience with M glass just feels....evolved [...]

A little bit bigger indeed . Evolution some (most?) M users are expecting is a mirrorless body the same size as an M i suspect.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[lct]

M with EVF and L mount is coming on June 14. [...]

June 14 of what year?

[trickness]

A little bit bigger indeed . Evolution some (most?) M users are expecting is a mirrorless body the same size as an M i suspect.

 

LeicaM10_SL_comp_01_web.jpg

I don’t think that’s possible given that the EVF requires a lot of battery juice. The M 10 already has reduced battery life versus the 240 because the body is slimmer; if there was an M/EVF model that thin, I suspect the camera would work for about an hour.

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I played with an M10 when I picked up my SL 75/2 earlier this year and it no longer held the magic for me that it did in the past ...... the SL EVF near optical quality and it's advantages in very low light have negated all the practical advantages of the M ...... except the marginal ones of size and weight...... if you use M lenses..... 

My M's have gradually gone ..... the Monochrom being the last one ..... which I really regretted parting with ..... but as it hadn't been used for 18 months it was becoming a museum exhibit rather than a camera, so that has gone to a new home where it hopefully will be cherished and used.  

Edited June 2, 2018 by thighslapper

[Smogg]

But m10 focuses much faster than SL with M-lenses

[FlashGordonPhotography]

But m10 focuses much faster than SL with M-lenses

 

I think the Noctiluxes and 135 APO would disagree with you.

 

I would think "But m10 focuses much faster than SL with *most* M-lenses" is accurate

 

I kind of agree with Trickness. But I'm still having a hard time selling any of my M gear. I rarely carry my SL for fun. I still reach for my M. If you add the EVF and grip to a type 240 it's the same size and weight as the SL. But the M10 is smaller and more importantly *feels* smaller.

 

You have convinced me to have another go at shooting some M lenses on the SL for a bit to see how I get on.....

 

Gordon

[lct]

I don’t think that’s possible given that the EVF requires a lot of battery juice. The M 10 already has reduced battery life versus the 240 because the body is slimmer; if there was an M/EVF model that thin, I suspect the camera would work for about an hour.

My A7s mod is shorter and slimmer than my M240. Remove the rangefinder, put the battery in a handgrip a la Sony and there would be enough room for an EVF the same size as that of the CL i guess. Now i'm no techie at all but for M users like yours truly the SL will never be the solution as long as it keeps its current bulk anyway.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by lct

[hkgmatt]

Similar to the OP, I have not used my M240 since I bought the SL, it's such a wonderful camera. I do continue to use the MM1 though, which gives me a very different shooting experience than the SL. Would I buy an M-sized EVF-equipped FF Leica? Sure I would, for the M lenses. For the SL lenses, the SL is perfectly sized and balanced.

[Mr.Q]

 

I would think "But m10 focuses much faster than SL with *most* M-lenses" is accurate

 

 

But is it really?

 

Take a 28mm or 35mm M lens for example.

 

If there's a decent amount of DOF (F5.6) I could pull focus using the focus tab by muscle memory and shoot just as quick as the M.

[sillbeers15]

I admit I use my SL more, I have my M10 which I pair it more often with my M35lux & M90corn.

With my SL as my workhorse camera and having SL native lenses superior performance and AF convenience,

I keep my M system compact and light as an alternative for me to shoot still subjects. The M10 is my walk about camera.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

But is it really?

 

Take a 28mm or 35mm M lens for example.

 

If there's a decent amount of DOF (F5.6) I could pull focus using the focus tab by muscle memory and shoot just as quick as the M.

 

I think so. Many users of the M shoot at wide or close to wide open apertures. And if you can zone focus fast on the SL you can also zone focus just as fast on the M. So the SL doesn't have an advantage. At wider apertures the M is faster, for me. No need to use the focus aids. However when we get faster than 1.4 I find the SL easier to focus.

 

Gordon 

[Yuhau]

Yeah, agreed as with the excellent SL EVF,  but I still prefer the M form factor any day .

Being a  T, V-lux, M10 and SL user,  I would be a  happy man to get a full frame version of CL ( L mount, M form factor, built in EVF ) to complete my digital stable.

   

 

Yauhau

[jaapv]

A sad state of affairs, preferring the M for the form factor/size only.

 

It neglects the essential difference of a telescope/rangefinder viewfinder, which has existed since the 1960-ies (and even before) .

With a screen type viewfinder, be it an SLR or a mirrorless, you are looking at a replica of the finished image in two dimensions. With a telescope viewfinder you are looking at the three dimensional world  which yet has to become a photograph.

 

This goes beyond a few mm here and there or weight and heft. It has to do with the way we see the world and visualize our photographs. Obviously that will be different for each individual photographer. It is all about the craftsman choosing the tool that fits his personality and vision.

[lct]

RF vs TTL is an old story. Photogs preferring RFs have always felt so for different reasons including size, silence and M lenses of course. What is new is we can use M lenses with mirrorless cameras which are even more silent than current Ms nowadays but the rangefinder itself keeps its specificity obviously. What is sad, i feel, is not that some M lens users prefer mirrorless cameras. It is that little efforts are made to modernize RF cameras which are perceived more and more as retro cameras but M users are hardly the culprits of that.

[jaapv]

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.

 

What lens one uses is irrelevant in this argument, with the bonus that one can even use preferred rangefinder lenses on a mirrorless camera.

That is no reason to turn a rangefinder camera into a me-too mirrorless camera, any more than it was in the past to turn it into an SLR.

Putting an EVF into a rangefinder camera will hardly improve or modernize the rangefinder, it is just replacing it by something that already exists - and better- in another type of machine.

Whether something is retro or not is completely beside the point. Cameras are tools, and their existence is justified by the use. A hammer is the oldest, most retro tool there is, and it is still in daily use.

[sillbeers15]

However good the optical range finder focusing mechanism has lens focal length limitations, it can effectively only accommodate 28mm to 90mm. So however advance technology can superimpose focus peak highlights onto real optical image, the range will be kept as above mentioned unless EVF takes over completely.

I’m sure Leica has thought through and instead of messing up the OVF on rangefinder camera, an attached EVF is introduced. I therefore do not see much technology can break through the M camera forward looking from the M10 other than minor tweaks ( as in from M240 to M10).

Therefore it is absolutely right that Leica keep the M camera purely back to basics with more new M lenses evolving from the current line of already great M lenses ( such as more Noctilux to appear, 35mm next?).

The SL and the Soon to be added CM will the the EVF based FF cameras on L mount (AF lenses) to allow Leica to fully embrace new technology. Granted Leica can make smaller Lmount cameras ( CM) than the current SL which main critics complain about its size. It will be interesting to see what next critics have to complain as their favourite pass time as it takes Leica next to nothing to produce one. Better still, I hope Leica charges more money for less (bikini maker philosophy) for the new camera suppose to be between SL and CL.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[wlaidlaw]

I have to admit my M240 has been gathering dust for some considerable time now. Really since I got the SL, although on a very few trips when I wanted to travel lighter, I did still take the M240 with one lens, rather than the SL. However, now that I have the CL, the M240 does not even have a weight advantage. I do use my film M's quite a bit, an M4, M7 and film CL plus just last week I have added an M4-P with M4-2 Winder, in case my M7 dies and there are no electronic spare parts for it. I wanted another film M with motor drive, which is not possible on my very early M4 or the film CL. 

 

It has almost reached the point where I would consider selling my M240 and M9 cameras, because they just don't get used but I suspect they are not worth a lot of money. It is so easy to focus MF lenses on both the SL and CL, that the rangefinder on the M240, has really lost its USP. I would still keep my M8 for its infra-red capabilities. 

 

Wilson

Edited June 3, 2018 by wlaidlaw