Convince me, or just educate me. Why an SLR?

[Jodad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey all. 
So I have a metered film leica or two (🤫) with a 50 and a 35. Both f2s. Thinking of getting a 90 f4. Maybe..
 

What real world benefits, If any, would I get with an SLR? Other than 1/4000 or 1/8000. Thinking fm3a/f6/r8/r9. 

People always say portraits are best with an SLR coz you see exactly what you get etc. I’m not a pro, just a hobbyist who likes to photograph his loved ones and friends. 
 

I’ve always been a bit Gasy... it’s fading but I don’t think it’ll ever totally go

Would one be a good companion to a film m? I’m only talking film btw. I'm always  happy to buy a new camera but am I going to see any benefits in ease of use or anything else that I can use to jokingly justify the purchase to myself.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Jodad

[Einst_Stein]

Don't know.

[Mr.Prime]

an SLR won’t make any difference to your portraits, proving that you are using your M gear properly and aren’t shying away from longer focal lengths unecessarily

 

if you struggle at all with your M’s, an SLR might help depending on the problem

I like using my M’s, but I used an SLR for many years and can understand why they completely replaced the rangefinder for everyone except a few enthusiasts like us because they are more accurate for framing and are easier to focus in some cases esp. longer focal lengths, no finder blockage, easy to use with all kinds of filters. Technically they are the pinnacle of 35mm film camera design. Their weaknesses are dim finder with slow lenses and no view outside of the frame. If you haven’t tried one, I would recommend it.

Edited January 11, 2021 by Mr.Prime

[TomB_tx]

I carried both a Leica M model and an SLR from 1968 through the film era. The M used most - with 35, 50, 90 lenses, and the SLR (usually a Leicaflex SL) for close-up, macro, and longer lenses. I found 90 equivalent on both, so it was the switching point. As my eyes have gotten weaker I find I can faster and better focus the M rangefinder than judge sharpness on an SLR screen.

[Mr.Prime]

my SLR has a split prism centre, wouldn’t use an SLR without one, best of both worlds.

[masjah]

The obvious answer is that it's horses for courses - the right tool for the job. Ask yourself what you like to photograph. I'm most interested in tripod based architectural photography, and, in the film days, an SLR  was the right tool for me. My R9, with the latter day combined grid and microprism doughnut/split screen circle, suited me. I had the angle finder (which has a 2x magnification facility) and with these tools I could focus reliably and accurately. It was the obvious tool for long lenses, shift lens and macro lenses. For something like film based sports photography, it's not a good tool, and an SLR from N or C would have been much more appropriate.

The first digital "solution" for all my R lenses was the M240 with R-M adapter, which was perfectly workable for my type of work, but I also bought a 35/2.4 Summarit to use in "M-mode".  I'd used a rangefinder in early days in the form of a Zorki 4, but this reintroduced me to rangefinder photography, which I enjoy, and is of course a more portable and elegant, less clunky solution for wider lenses and more candid shots.

The SL2 EVF (with R adapter) is now my chosen solution for non-rangefinder use, because the IBIS helps with a benign tremor I've developed in my dotage, but I still very much have a nostalgic attraction to film.

An SLR is really nice to have for film use, but for me, I can't see a dSLR having any advantage over the SL2 EVF.

 

 

[Jodad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks all, it’s as I expected. Not necessary, perhaps slightly more convenient but if you use your m correctly, not required really. Thanks again