jdlaing Posted July 21, 2018 Share #21 Posted July 21, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why is it all about the money all of the time? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 21, 2018 Posted July 21, 2018 Hi jdlaing, Take a look here M10 rather than SL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
LeicaR10 Posted July 21, 2018 Share #22 Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Wosamko, Your original post appears you are trying to decide which camera you should buy, i.e. M10 or SL. Forget about the sensor(s), etc.. The sensors are superb in either camera or in any other Leica camera for that matter. I have owned and used the M, R, S and SL systems over the years. I have found for my needs, the M system meets or exceeds my expectations for my genre of photography, that is landscape and street photography. Your type(s) of photography and needs maybe different. For instance, you might need auto focus or other capabilities the M does not have/do. After 40 years of photography, I tell my clients, students and those who simply ask, the camera is merely a tool. Your ability to use the tool (camera) to capture your creative thought and moment in time is the ultimate purpose of photography, not the tool etc. You will read lots of opinions offering all kinds of advice here and other places, but always it gets down to your genre of photography and what you are trying to convey in your photographs...and no one can make that decision for you or capture that moment in time. Ultimately, you will find the answer to your question within yourself and through your superb photographs. r/ Mark Edited July 21, 2018 by LeicaR10 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgh Posted July 21, 2018 Share #23 Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Because one is a rangefinder and one is not. This is really all you need to know. They are simply two different ways of seeing the world. Wosamko, all of your other questions were answered in the other thread. My question to you is - because it is clear that no Leica offerings suit what you are really looking for, why are you still insisting on a Leica at all? If you think the SL is going to draw any less attention than you're Nikon I'd say you're mistaken. And you've stated the M isn't for you. Edited July 21, 2018 by pgh 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngjohn Posted July 21, 2018 Share #24 Posted July 21, 2018 Another way of looking at it. The beauty of the SL is that although it is slightly bigger than an M10 body, you can if required use an AF lens on it. I have both and I’m afraid that if one had to go it would be the M10 for that reason. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 21, 2018 Share #25 Posted July 21, 2018 Dear all, Please see the text in the links from official Leica webpages for SL and M10 which proves they have SAME SENSOR. Please let me know if I missed or mistake http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-SL/Leica-SL/Details http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M10/Details Those links only prove that the sensors have the same basic specifications and tell us nothing about the design of the sensors , except for the snippet Jeff found, which is a clear indication that they were designed individually. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted July 21, 2018 Share #26 Posted July 21, 2018 Depends on the lenses you have / want to use + your photographic style / purpose. With my M10 bodies I use 28/35/50/75 almost exclusively, with 21 SEM and WATE 16-21 and 90 Macro / 135 A-T only coming into use for a limited number of projects. With the focal lengths mentioned above I find the range-finder experience to be hugely satisfying and totally appropriate to my needs (reportage / landscape / portraiture). For studio / stage performance work I use the Canon 5D4 + a range of zooms alongside the Ms. In terms of value for money and user experience I greatly prefer the Canon 5D series to the SL (though I've never used the SL with its native zooms). OK - the native SL lenses are things of beauty, but they're monsters and too expensive for me to justify in current market conditions. Lenses like the L series Canon 24-70 f2.8 mkII / 70-200 IS f2.8 mlI and 100-400 f4-f5.6 IS are remarkable in their light gathering and rendering qualities - and they're a very small fraction of the cost of the Leica equivalents. Likewise the humble "kit" L series Canon 24-105 f4 IS mkII. So - returning to the OP's question - if you're happy with the focal lengths I mentioned above, and enjoy manual focus and the rangefinder experience an M10 is unbeatable. If you want to cover birds, landscapes, events and landscape, unless you have a very large disposable income and strong arms and back, I'd think of another system. Canon, Nikon, Sony all have really good tools out there that will do the job. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngjohn Posted July 21, 2018 Share #27 Posted July 21, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) OK - the native SL lenses are things of beauty, but they're monsters and too expensive for me to justify in current market conditions. Lenses like the L series Canon 24-70 f2.8 mkII / 70-200 IS f2.8 mlI and 100-400 f4-f5.6 IS are remarkable in their light gathering and rendering qualities... Is the Leica 24-90 really a 'Monster' compared to a Canon 24-70 f2.8 mkII? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
6bit Posted July 21, 2018 Share #28 Posted July 21, 2018 He didn’t compare lens sizes. He mentioned cost. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
6bit Posted July 21, 2018 Share #29 Posted July 21, 2018 I believe the SL would be nice to have on lenses longer than 75mm and wider than 28mm. I prefer having frame lines and I’m not big on focusing longer focal lengths optically. The nocti lenses are good candidates for the SL for wanting to nail critical focus. I don’t worry about my rangefinder being out of calibration but one day I’m sure I will. I specifically avoid M lenses like the 90/2 just because of the focusing stories I have read. This is where the SL would shine. Definitely better than a Sony because of the sensor stack. A There is always the visioflex one can add to the M10 but the SL would seem to offer more with the above lenses. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngjohn Posted July 21, 2018 Share #30 Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) OK - the native SL lenses are things of beauty, but they're monsters He didn’t compare lens sizes. He mentioned cost. If you're happy using a Canon 24-70 then I'm not sure why a Leica 24-70 is a monster? Edited July 21, 2018 by youngjohn 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngjohn Posted July 21, 2018 Share #31 Posted July 21, 2018 That should be 24-90. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdemeyer Posted July 21, 2018 Share #32 Posted July 21, 2018 Am I the only one whose nose seems to go right into the OVF when using the Visoflex? :-( 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted July 21, 2018 Share #33 Posted July 21, 2018 Am I the only one whose nose seems to go right into the OVF when using the Visoflex? :-(No you are not! You will have to learn to use your left eye with the EVF (and still need a lens cleaning cloth in your pocket!). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted July 21, 2018 Share #34 Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) If you're happy using a Canon 24-70 then I'm not sure why a Leica 24-70 is a monster? Woops - I should have been commenting on the 70-280. Although the 28-90 is a bigger, heavier lens + it does have the extra reach... Leica Elmarit-SL 24-90mm F2.8-4 ASPH Canon 24-70mm f2.8L USM Weight 1140g vs 950g When you compare the Leica 70-280 with the Canon 70-200 f2.8 or L series 70-300 f4-f5.6, the size / weight thing comes into perspective: SL90-280 vs Canon 70-300 Weight 1710g vs 1050g SL90-280 vs Canon 70-200 f2.8: Weight 1710g vs 1490g He didn’t compare lens sizes. He mentioned cost. And this is where the real difference comes in - both the 24-70 mkii and 70-200 L IS mkii really are very good lenses, and are genuine value for money as pro work horses. 24-70mm F2.8 L USM II £1,739.00 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM II £1,979.00 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM III £2,149.99 (I've not used this - and am not sure how much better it is - an extra stop of IS / new coating) However good the Leica lenses are, are they THAT much better in the print? 24-90mm F2.8-4 Asph - £3,499.00 90-280mm F2.8-4 Apo SL - £4,650.00 That should be 24-90. Correct AND for me there's the simple preference for the bright optical viewfinder on the Canon 5D4 compared with the (for me!) less satisfactory experience of the SL's EVF... But all this is mainly a matter of preference - and if you have the money the SL certainly does a job! Edited July 21, 2018 by chris_tribble 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngjohn Posted July 21, 2018 Share #35 Posted July 21, 2018 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. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafael_macia Posted July 21, 2018 Share #36 Posted July 21, 2018 After 2 240 M-P's I evolved to two SL's. That I decided (for me...) was not versatile enough. So I have now 2 SL's I shoot video, and need a backup. But I also picked up an M10. For fast moving coverage a rangefinder has always been the answer. .... well not always ... but for the sake of this post... The zoom on the SL was too big for my taste. So in short; for quick coverage M10 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted July 21, 2018 Share #37 Posted July 21, 2018 It just seems to me that words like 'huge' and 'monster' are hyperbole and frankly silly. Fair enough. Would "too expensive for me" do? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngjohn Posted July 21, 2018 Share #38 Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Fair enough. Would "too expensive for me" do? A pair of M10 bodies would be too expensive for me - I can only afford one Edited July 21, 2018 by youngjohn 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 21, 2018 Share #39 Posted July 21, 2018 Fair enough. Would "too expensive for me" do? After all the size, weight and other comparisons, I do think this is the only real distinction that can be made. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted July 21, 2018 Share #40 Posted July 21, 2018 Fair enough. Would "too expensive for me" do? After all the size, weight and other comparisons, I do think this is the only real distinction that can be made. Sure, but this is a different—weightless, sizeless—dimension. It's a dimension of perception only. Perfectly valid however: I would never buy a Leica S system for the same reason. Even though I could afford it if I needed to buy it... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.