SL2 as the sole system - or keep an M?

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The SL and M systems do indeed serve different purposes, though for me the M has been replaced by the CL. In my usage, the CL is for social, family and travel, while the SL2 is for portrait, events, theatre. I also use the Sigma fp for video with SL lenses. The benefit of being able to treat all the lenses as a single ecosystem is immense, and was the main reason why the CL replaced my M240. I don't need the marginally better IQ that the M240/M10 would offer - or rather, bleeding-edge IQ is not as important as the subject matter in social/family/travel. If I need the best IQ then I'll use the SL2. I don't use TL lenses on the SL2, but I do sometimes use the Summicron-SL 75 & 90 on the CL.

So if you find you are not using the M much, save some money and get the CL for those occasions you want to go light (and when it's not raining!).

But contradicting myself somewhat, I wouldn't make a decision till the pandemic is over and we can get back to 'normal' photography.

Edited October 25, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest]

12 hours ago, chris_tribble said:

 

Gosh, that’s the first time I’ve been trolled on this forum! 
I won’t feed it further. 
Thanks for other’s thoughtful and supportive responses. Reflecting on the tools we use and how changing circumstances can lead to moments of reappraisal is part of professional practice on my planet. Being able to chat about it on this forum continues to be a valued resource. 
 

You did actually post "is life imaginable without an M camera in it"  which i found absurd.

But your right of course as i should kept my thoughts to myself.

[lanetomlane]

Hi Chris, I would certainly keep the M system, or at least part of it. I have the SL, SL2, 16-35, 24-90, 90-280 and the 50mm SL Summilux. The SL system in my opinion is wonderful and it's easy to get great images. However, I often have the urge to take out either the M10, or M9M as some how or other it just feels to be more creative and artistic.

If I do an overseas trip (remember those days when you could) I would take the SL system, but as soon as I got home I would have to need to use the M's and do some street photography.

Just my two cents worth.

https://photographybytomlane.com

[Arrow]

I got rid of digital M cameras and happily shoot film Ms, loaded with bw film, alongside the SL system. 

[Arrow]

3 hours ago, Steven said:

This makes sense too. The sL is surely the system than can do it all. 
The M is more about enjoyment. But it’s limited in some ways. 

Owning the SL is to make sure you can shoot anything you want. The film M is for your fix of RF when you need it. 

Precisely!

With the SL, I shot lots of images, I would not have shot with a digital M camera. 

Film is a great deal of fun in its own right. Neither the SLs nor digital Ms do take film, though. I see shooting film and the whole film process as a complementary add-on to digital, especially when merged in a hybrid way. 

 

Edited October 26, 2020 by Arrow

[Jon Warwick]

3 hours ago, Arrow said:

I got rid of digital M cameras and happily shoot film Ms, loaded with bw film, alongside the SL system. 

Exactly the same route I’ve ended up taking.

I sold out of M digital and various M lenses including the M50 APO. For digital, I am now using the SL2 and SL50 APO.

I prefer the image quality of this SL2 set up over anything digital M.

I have kept the M7 though for B&W film only. I think the SL2 is the Leica full-frame pinnacle when it comes to image quality, but i like pairing it with a film M’s very distinct form factor and print output.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Jon Warwick

[_Michael]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As much as I love the M I finally jumped into a couple years ago, lately I have found that it is just not compatible with the worsening astigmatism in my right eye. Zone focusing still of course quite viable, but anything critical was not fun. The condition is causing double vision on a vertical plane and always present through the viewfinder.
 

Ultimately I let it go as the SL has proven to be quite effective for me. The flexibility to use so many different lenses, the image quality, etc just find this being right for me. The results with M glass have been outstanding, and I’ve enjoying dusting off some old glass I’ve held onto for 40 years. I also have a Q as a complementary body. 
 

For me there has always been this sort of romantic appeal to the M rangefinder. I understood that once I owned one. If I’m honest that was one of the hardest things to let go. If eye issues were not a factor I’m not entirely sure my direction would be any different. 

[Jeff S]

25 minutes ago, _Michael said:

As much as I love the M I finally jumped into a couple years ago, lately I have found that it is just not compatible with the worsening astigmatism in my right eye. Zone focusing still of course quite viable, but anything critical was not fun. The condition is causing double vision on a vertical plane and always present through the viewfinder.
 

Ultimately I let it go as the SL has proven to be quite effective for me. The flexibility to use so many different lenses, the image quality, etc just find this being right for me. The results with M glass have been outstanding, and I’ve enjoying dusting off some old glass I’ve held onto for 40 years. I also have a Q as a complementary body. 
 

For me there has always been this sort of romantic appeal to the M rangefinder. I understood that once I owned one. If I’m honest that was one of the hardest things to let go. If eye issues were not a factor I’m not entirely sure my direction would be any different. 

And eyeglasses can’t correct your astigmatism?

Jeff

[_Michael]

8 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

And eyeglasses can’t correct your astigmatism?

Jeff

Great question. To a point, but I need a bifocal. I only seem to get the double-vision a close distances, at least in any noticeable way. When corrected for close vision, the distance vision is a blur. Same for using a Leica Diopter...it corrects for the full frame of view. It seems that I have to pick either distance or near vision correction. I've not found an effective way to solve this but would love to. 

[Jeff S]

11 minutes ago, _Michael said:

Great question. To a point, but I need a bifocal. I only seem to get the double-vision a close distances, at least in any noticeable way. When corrected for close vision, the distance vision is a blur. Same for using a Leica Diopter...it corrects for the full frame of view. It seems that I have to pick either distance or near vision correction. I've not found an effective way to solve this but would love to. 

I wear glasses that correct for distance and astigmatism. The focus patch is set at a virtual distance of 2m (VF has built-in minus .5 diopter), so I’m fortunate that my distance correction allows me to see the focus patch (mostly) clearly as well as longer distances. (When looking at the rear screen, I lift my glasses.. I hate bi-focal.)  But with aging eyes, I’ve recently added a +.5 diopter (in addition to using glasses) to optimize focusing. One can experiment with diopters at a Leica dealer or, as I did, using trial diopters at a local optician.  I wear prescription sunglasses in daylight to accommodate light sensitivity as well. Achieving comfortable viewing is a personal matter and sometimes requires some experimentation.  And with an M, it helps to ensure that the camera and the lenses are each calibrated well (comparing LV to RF). 

Jeff

[_Michael]

56 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I wear glasses that correct for distance and astigmatism. The focus patch is set at a virtual distance of 2m (VF has built-in minus .5 diopter), so I’m fortunate that my distance correction allows me to see the focus patch (mostly) clearly as well as longer distances. (When looking at the rear screen, I lift my glasses.. I hate bi-focal.)  But with aging eyes, I’ve recently added a +.5 diopter (in addition to using glasses) to optimize focusing. One can experiment with diopters at a Leica dealer or, as I did, using trial diopters at a local optician.  I wear prescription sunglasses in daylight to accommodate light sensitivity as well. Achieving comfortable viewing is a personal matter and sometimes requires some experimentation.  And with an M, it helps to ensure that the camera and the lenses are each calibrated well (comparing LV to RF). 

Jeff

Thanks for the insight Jeff. It was quite workable until earlier this year when the close distance double vision got worse. I visited one of the two area Leica dealers and they had no diopters for me to try. I seem to have a sweet-spot in my vision from around 1 to 2 meters where vision is fine. It is closer and further where it gets interesting. Given what you say about the diopter, I am encouraged to revisit this at some point. 

[Jeff S]

18 minutes ago, _Michael said:

Thanks for the insight Jeff. It was quite workable until earlier this year when the close distance double vision got worse. I visited one of the two area Leica dealers and they had no diopters for me to try. I seem to have a sweet-spot in my vision from around 1 to 2 meters where vision is fine. It is closer and further where it gets interesting. Given what you say about the diopter, I am encouraged to revisit this at some point. 

Of course correct for astigmatism first, then try to optimize for 2m (focus patch), ideally without sacrificing too much elsewhere.

Jeff

[hillavoider]

On 10/25/2020 at 12:48 PM, steve 1959 said:

The desperate anguish of first world issues..the suffering is almost unbearable.

That's just embarrassing mate

[hillavoider]

Don't sell the M 

Everyone who sells their m collection comes on here and regrets it 😀 I would 

Edited October 28, 2020 by hillavoider

[ardbeg]

1 hour ago, hillavoider said:

Don't sell the M 

Everyone who sells their m collection comes on here and regrets it 😀 I would 

Not to bicker, but I sold most of my M lenses and my M10 and moved to the SL2 and I do not regret it. I like the more precise focusing via focus peaking in the SL2 EVF and greater variety of adapted lens options (I regularly use a Canon TS lens, an S macro, and some longer R lenses on the SL2). Now that said, I’ll never give up my Noctilux F1, quirky 28 Summaron, and Zeiss 50 Sonnar M lenses. Street shooting with the Summaron on the SL2 does allow for a more discrete / compact shooting approach similar to but of course not the same as street shooting with an M.

Edited October 28, 2020 by ardbeg

[Guest]

7 hours ago, hillavoider said:

That's just embarrassing mate

Maybe but what are we debating on this thread exactly? 

Sale the porche if you do not use it and keep the bentley if you want? but where is the debate?

[ardbeg]

5 minutes ago, steve 1959 said:

Maybe but what are we debating on this thread exactly? 

Sale the porche if you do not use it and keep the bentley if you want? but where is the debate?

I think the better metaphor for the discussion is "do I keep the air aspirated 80s/90s era Porsche 911 with manual transmission" or "do I trade it in for a newer model with different engine configuration and PDK".

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Each to his/her own.

I spent some time not showing any love to my M10. A fine camera and the best M yet but I was flirting with the other systems, including the SL2. I seriously contemplated getting out of the M altogether. Why have all this stuff if it's just sitting on a shelf?

This was weird. I really enjoy shooting with an M. I don't mind missing shots and I like the way it concentrates my *focus*, pardon the pun. I'd shot nothing but M's both professionally and personally for several years at one point. I don't NEED the bells and whistles of the SL2. When I thought about it I found I wasn't using any of my 24MP cameras. I can print big and it was that nagging voice telling me I needed resolution. It's a stupid thought. Even I, who can print big, only does so once every couple of months. But the nagging was there. So I bought a M10M.

I've also added an M10R. Now, it's the SL2 that's sitting on the shelf. The SL lenses might be objectively *better* but this is fun. I wouldn't carry an SL2 everywhere I go but the M10M and a MATE have joined me on trips to the supermarket.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to keep/sell a camera system. Just don't rush in to a decision. Let it stew for a while. Work out the real reason and then make a decision.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[chris_tribble]

On 10/28/2020 at 7:21 PM, ardbeg said:

I think the better metaphor for the discussion is "do I keep the air aspirated 80s/90s era Porsche 911 with manual transmission" or "do I trade it in for a newer model with different engine configuration and PDK".

Wrong metaphor entirely - and I'd have you know I drive a 10 year old Skoda Yeti!

My issue is that if economic realities forced me to make a choice, would I limit myself to one main system over another.  As a working professional I used Canon film and Digital SLRs for over around 30 years (Eos 1 and 1v through all the 5 series iterations to 5D mk 4).    Alongside this system I used film M6 and then digital M8 through to M10.  I needed these two systems as one of them allowed me to use fast zooms (and some great primes), and the other let me travel light and document complex subjects in difficult situations.  Both of these systems earned their livings.  I now find myself with a potential unifiying system based on the L mount, with the SL2 in particular enabling me to use my M glass AND modern zooms and AF lenses on the same system.  Given this fact, and in this pandemic world, I face a major question regarding whether or not it's sensible to  have so much capital sunk in a system that I'm not using that much...

A lot of thoughtful people have responded to my initial question saying that it's daft to get rid of the Ms as they do a unique job.  Maybe not hold on to both, but at least keep one.  I'm inclined to go in this direction and will keep at least one (but probably keep both for the moment), with my current promise to myself being that I'll stay happy with the M10 despite it "only" being 24MP, and "only" having a workable base ISO of 200, and "being really limited" in holding on to highlight detail.

So - gentle reader - PLEASE don't assume that all the people who contribute to the forum are well-heeled amateur dilletantes, and please don't assume that we don't need to get full value from the investments that we make in kit that we buy. 

Edited October 30, 2020 by chris_tribble

[ardbeg]

51 minutes ago, chris_tribble said:

Wrong metaphor entirely - and I'd have you know I drive a 10 year old Skoda Yeti

Well, the Porsche reference was a bit in jest as I similarly drive an almost 10 year old beaten up VW Golf. I personally don't think you'd be daft to get rid of the Ms. I got rid of my M (and most but not all of the M lenses) to consolidate down to just an SL2 because 1) my ability to properly focus with a rangefinder is decaying and I was using the 020 EVF more and more so why not just get a proper EVF like in the SL2 and 2) my wife's "less is more" anti-materialism has partially rubbed off on me and I too don't like to keep gear I'm not using as frequently as I once did. I like the SL2 most as I can consolidate down to my favorite, most used lenses across several mounts (Canon, LTM, M, L, R, and S) and I very much like that adapted lens flexibility the SL2 offers.