M10 rather than SL

[qvsm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you like (and want) the manual nature of the rangefinder system, there really isn't much to decide.  Putting cost, size etc aside, this is really the only way to get clarity on what what system will work for you.  I've tried the M10, Q and SL and while I loved them all, they fit different needs.  While you can make any work for mostly any type of photography, I found that the Q works fantastically well for everyday, the M10 for everything, the SL plus zoom for shoots.  I distinctly disliked the experience of the SL and M lenses, for me, the native lenses worked much better.

[chris_tribble]

...I distinctly disliked the experience of the SL and M lenses, for me, the native lenses worked much better.

+1 for M lenses on M bodies too!  I've tried the CL and SL as a platform for these and they didn't work for me...

Edited July 22, 2018 by chris_tribble

[Guest]

If you like (and want) the manual nature of the rangefinder system, there really isn't much to decide.  Putting cost, size etc aside, this is really the only way to get clarity on what what system will work for you.  I've tried the M10, Q and SL and while I loved them all, they fit different needs.  While you can make any work for mostly any type of photography, I found that the Q works fantastically well for everyday, the M10 for everything, the SL plus zoom for shoots.  I distinctly disliked the experience of the SL and M lenses, for me, the native lenses worked much better.

 

 

I agree, well mostly........

First of all despite a shaky start for me with the Q I fully concur that it's a great, very useful, tool. It's the Leica that I have to decide not to take with me when I want a personal day with a camera, and on paying jobs it's always thrown in there as a back-up camera whatever the primaries may be. The results from the Q are just superb and it's extremely flexible and I enjoy using it despite my dislike of EVF's and my disappointment with the recent firmware upgrade.

The M's? There's nothing like them, they have been my favourite camera platform for decades and when the task in hand suits them they are unparalleled.

The SL and the CL's, I have no interest in despite having trialed them both. My Nikon DSLR, ( 810 ), kit does much more than the SL could ever produce for me with better outcomes and above all the 810 has an optical VF that for me will always be a better choice than a EVF no matter how "good" an EVF is purported to be.

[chris_tribble]

... an optical VF that for me will always be a better choice than a EVF no matter how "good" an EVF is purported to be.

++1

[youngjohn]

Interesting, my experiences are quite the opposite. I never got on with the Q and sold it within a few months. I used to use D4’s for work and these have been replaced with SL’s and now I could never go back to a DSLR. The advantages of the EVF work so much better for me. I also find the SL lenses to be way ahead of the Nikon zooms and the fact that I can stick a tiny M lens on an SL body is the icing on the cake for me.

[01af]

... an optical viewfinder that for me will always be a better choice than a electronic viewfinder no matter how "good" an electronic viewfinder is purported to be.

 

An optical viewfinder's image will always be 'nicer' (as in: more beautiful) than an electronic one's, that much is true. But peeping through a viewfinder is not about the image therein. It's about the image that eventually will come out of the camera. So it's not about the beauty of the image we see in the viewfinder but about how helpful the viewfinder is to create the picture we're having in mind. And to that end, an electronic viewfinder is much better than an optical reflex finder today, and it will be even better in the future.

 

I stopped using (digital) reflex cameras with flapping mirrors entirely, and never will buy another again. With those, I'm done. For me, it's rangefinder here and mirrorless electronic viewfinder there. Optical reflex finder—thank you, but no thanks.

[stefanusj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have both. For street photography, i always pick M10+35cron; for wedding and job, i always prefer SL+50lux / 35cron.

 

There are some difference color and ISO sensitivity, but i just dont care about that anymore. Just follow whatever your heart wants... because both are an awesome camera.

[wosamko]

Why is it all about the money all of the time?

Money Hard to Get, Easy to Spend  

[wosamko]

I have both. For street photography, i always pick M10+35cron; for wedding and job, i always prefer SL+50lux / 35cron.

 

There are some difference color and ISO sensitivity, but i just dont care about that anymore. Just follow whatever your heart wants... because both are an awesome camera.

 

1- What is the best single lens for M10 to be used for family, event and travel? I don't want to carry more than two lenses. One should be enough

2- Is Zeiss lenses great for Leica M10?

Thanks

[jaapv]

1. Entirely up to your shooting style. The Summilux 35 should be an excellent starting point.

2. Zeiss  ZM lenses are high-quality alternatives. Nothing bad to say about them.

[ramarren]

1- What is the best single lens for M10 to be used for family, event and travel? I don't want to carry more than two lenses. One should be enough

2- Is Zeiss lenses great for Leica M10?

Thanks

 

 

1- On a recent holiday trip to Cork, Ireland, I brought the M-D along with 35mm and 50mm lenses. I made 240-some photos of family, friends, etc, as well as a bunch of photos around town on the streets. Of those 240 photographs, only four were made with the 35mm lens. 

 

Obviously, this is a highly personal evaluation and depends on you more than anything else.

 

2- Can't help there, I have no Zeiss lenses to test with. I use primarily Leica lenses on my digital M so as to take advantage of the Leica lens profiles. 

[M11 for me]

. . . Of those 240 photographs, only four were made with the 35mm lens. 

 

. . .

 

If you had the 35mm on the camera and not something else then you would come to the conclusion that a 100% of your shots were done with 35mm.

 

By no means I would like to appear arrogant but for me very often it simply does not matter too much wether you have a 28 or a 35 or a 50mm on the M. And still for wharever reason I change lenses when I have them with me.

[chris_tribble]

Looking back at my own use over the last year - of around 8000 images (retained rather than taken...) it's pretty clear that the lenses that are earning their keep for me are 28 / 35 / 50. 75 and 135 are very much in the second tier, and 90, 21 and WATE don't get much of a look in.

 

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!

[ramarren]

If you had the 35mm on the camera and not something else then you would come to the conclusion that a 100% of your shots were done with 35mm.

 

By no means I would like to appear arrogant but for me very often it simply does not matter too much wether you have a 28 or a 35 or a 50mm on the M. And still for wharever reason I change lenses when I have them with me.

 

 

I have several fixed-lens cameras. With them, I don't consider what choice of lens to use once I've bought them ... there are no options. I bought them because I liked what they did, so the question of which lens to have was made before I made the camera purchase. 

 

If you don't have any options, it is not useful to consider whether using the only thing available to you is what you used. It will always be the ONLY thing you use, analyzing it that way provides no useful information. If, however, you have a choice between using one thing and another, or one thing and several others, the analysis of what you actually used provides useful information, provided you are analyzing the usage in the context of your intent. 

 

A 28, a 35, and a 50mm lens see the world in very different ways on a 35mm format sensor. If you cannot see the difference, I suggest you might want to look a little harder at the photographs you make with them. I don't change lenses willy-nilly just because "I have them with me." I change lenses when I want the camera to see the world differently, in a way that matches what my intent of making a particular photograph is. 

 

And of course, if I only have two lenses to choose from and my intent of what I want to photograph tends to elect just one of them most of the time, that is useful information and leads to the statement: "Obviously, this is a highly personal evaluation and depends on you more than anything else."

[ramarren]

Looking back at my own use over the last year - of around 8000 images (retained rather than taken...) it's pretty clear that the lenses that are earning their keep for me are 28 / 35 / 50. 75 and 135 are very much in the second tier, and 90, 21 and WATE don't get much of a look in.

 

graph.png

 

Hmm. My WATE gets the least use of any of my lenses. Yet ... I have used it to make four or five out of my top ten favorite photographs of the past three years. So it is worth having it? Is it worth carrying it all the time? Is it the "most important single lens" I could have for my Leica M? 

 

It's questions like these that make the question of "What is the most important lens for me to have with my new M10?" so difficult to answer in a rational manner.

Edited July 23, 2018 by ramarren

[chris_tribble]

Maybe it helps though... Given the strengths (and limitations) of the optical range finder it wouldn't make sense to me to only have a 21mm lens - or only have a 90 or 135.  In my experience the RF on the M excels between 28 and 50 (with possibly the 75 - especially the Summarit 2.4 - squeezing in...) If someone has restricted funds and WANTS an M, I'd recommend they get any of the holy trinity (28/35/50).  Any of these would do a good job so long as they were willing to use their feet.  I also agree with others that the Elmarits are also really really good lenses and outstanding value!

 

I had an interesting experience visiting a Paul Nash exhibition.  He took some beautiful shots (https://pallantbookshop.com/product/a-private-world-25-photographs-by-paul-nash-1931-1946/) - using a 1A pocket Kodak series 2 (120 film fixed lens).  In the end it's the photographer's eye that really matters

[M11 for me]

I have several fixed-lens cameras. With them, I don't consider what choice of lens to use once I've bought them ... there are no options. I bought them because I liked what they did, so the question of which lens to have was made before I made the camera purchase. 

 

If you don't have any options, it is not useful to consider whether using the only thing available to you is what you used. It will always be the ONLY thing you use, analyzing it that way provides no useful information. If, however, you have a choice between using one thing and another, or one thing and several others, the analysis of what you actually used provides useful information, provided you are analyzing the usage in the context of your intent. 

 

A 28, a 35, and a 50mm lens see the world in very different ways on a 35mm format sensor. If you cannot see the difference, I suggest you might want to look a little harder at the photographs you make with them. I don't change lenses willy-nilly just because "I have them with me." I change lenses when I want the camera to see the world differently, in a way that matches what my intent of making a particular photograph is. 

 

And of course, if I only have two lenses to choose from and my intent of what I want to photograph tends to elect just one of them most of the time, that is useful information and leads to the statement: "Obviously, this is a highly personal evaluation and depends on you more than anything else."

Well that is not quite the answer to what I posted. When we have on the M just one prime lens and we have noting else in the bag then you have no other choice than being happy with what you have. And now my point: Very often I come home and I feel very happy with what I did during the day. Just with the one lens I had on my M.

[6bit]

It just seems to me that words like 'huge' and 'monster' are hyperbole and frankly silly.

The Leica lenses are variable aperture but also give significantly (particularly in the case of the 90-280) longer reach.

Before using SL's with zooms, I used Nikon D4's with 24-70, 70-200 and 85/1.4 lenses and the size difference is utterly insignificant other than the fact that the SL body is smaller (or perhaps I should say 'miniscule' to keep in with the trend for pointless exaggeration) compared to the D4.

 

 

I have been using my new SL this week. Huge and Monster are the terms my right hand is using after using it. I think it is the grip. The grip is huge. Much larger than my M10 with half case on. I believe this is where the huge and monster words come into play. My hand is fatigued. This does not happen when only use my M10 (even after a full day of shooting).

[youngjohn]

IHuge and Monster are the terms my right hand is using after using it. I think it is the grip. The grip is huge. Much larger than my M10 with half case on. I believe this is where the huge and monster words come into play. My hand is fatigued.

 

 

Well if you think that the grip is huge and monster, the only thing I can suggest is that you must have tiny, minuscule hands...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hektor]

Apologies chaps if this is the wrong thread for my question which is:

 

What are the advantages of upgrading my Leica M8.2 to an M10?

 

I know all the technical stuff about the larger sensor, faster buffer etc., but will the M10 produce better A3 prints?