Caught between a rock (M) and a hard place (SL2)

[augustwest100]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello there,

I am looking to get some advice coming from a Sony A9, which I got not because I shoot action, but because I was drawn to the "no blackout" EVF. I have used and owned many Leicas in my day, including the MP film camera, the M9, M240,  Q, and M10, and am currently "between" Leicas. I am wondering whether anyone can guide me with my next decision: Whether to sell the Sony A9 and the glass I own for it in order to get a Leica SL2 or SL2S, or to get the Leica M10R. I absolutely love the experience of looking through a glass viewfinder at the real world and I like to take a minimalist approach to what gear I carry. I never "spray and pray," even with the A9, at most I focus once, recompose and shoot. 

 I don't always hit focus with the M cameras, and sometimes I get a little stressed by the fact that you cannot see the exact framing of the image, and many of the lenses (such as the Summicron 35mm M I still own) do not focus on close subjects. So I guess what I am saying is that I am struggling with the pros and cons of both systems. The M system is near and dear to me, but I don't always get focus or framing when under a little pressure. The SL2S intrigues me as a good way to replace my Sony A9, sacrificing Sony's autofocus madness, button layout, and pages of frustrating menus, for a more sublime Leica experience, but seems a little heavy.  The reason I was thinking of SL2S versus M10R is that the resolution of the  M10R would allow me to "fix" the framing if I don't get it perfect, where on the SL2S I would be seeing exactly what I would get before I shoot, so the extra resolution would probably not be needed as much. 

Of course I would love to own both someday

Note: I am not a professional photographer. I like shooting street, landscape and sometimes non-studio portraits. I like Leica because of the simplicity of use, the connection to film days, and because of the dedicated dials for ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture. If the M10D had a film advance lever that worked, I probably would have pulled the plug on that baby! And if the Sony A9 had dedicated dials (and less of them) and about 10 pages less of options (animal eye auto focus - wow!) I would consider keeping it.

Thanks for any advice you may have!

 

[a.noctilux]

Hello August,

I understand that "wondering if ..." as I had that sentiments long ago.

When I wanted to take pics of the whole world, I took Leica system in M and R .

With the M only now even if I use some R lenses on them from time to time.

 

In your place, I'd take M10-x with their flaws when using Visoflex 020 ...

OVF as main use and rely on EVF (or LCD) for the rest (macro, close focus or other system lenses).

OVF has some flaws of course but with practice, those flaws become acceptable (or not) depending only on users.

 

Arnaud

[Advertisement]

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

[LBJ2]

42 minutes ago, augustwest100 said:

Hello there,

I am looking to get some advice coming from a Sony A9, which I got not because I shoot action, but because I was drawn to the "no blackout" EVF. I have used and owned many Leicas in my day, including the MP film camera, the M9, M240,  Q, and M10, and am currently "between" Leicas. I am wondering whether anyone can guide me with my next decision: Whether to sell the Sony A9 and the glass I own for it in order to get a Leica SL2 or SL2S, or to get the Leica M10R. I absolutely love the experience of looking through a glass viewfinder at the real world and I like to take a minimalist approach to what gear I carry. I never "spray and pray," even with the A9, at most I focus once, recompose and shoot. 

 I don't always hit focus with the M cameras, and sometimes I get a little stressed by the fact that you cannot see the exact framing of the image, and many of the lenses (such as the Summicron 35mm M I still own) do not focus on close subjects. So I guess what I am saying is that I am struggling with the pros and cons of both systems. The M system is near and dear to me, but I don't always get focus or framing when under a little pressure. The SL2S intrigues me as a good way to replace my Sony A9, sacrificing Sony's autofocus madness, button layout, and pages of frustrating menus, for a more sublime Leica experience, but seems a little heavy.  The reason I was thinking of SL2S versus M10R is that the resolution of the  M10R would allow me to "fix" the framing if I don't get it perfect, where on the SL2S I would be seeing exactly what I would get before I shoot, so the extra resolution would probably not be needed as much. 

Of course I would love to own both someday

Note: I am not a professional photographer. I like shooting street, landscape and sometimes non-studio portraits. I like Leica because of the simplicity of use, the connection to film days, and because of the dedicated dials for ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture. If the M10D had a film advance lever that worked, I probably would have pulled the plug on that baby! And if the Sony A9 had dedicated dials (and less of them) and about 10 pages less of options (animal eye auto focus - wow!) I would consider keeping it.

Thanks for any advice you may have!

 

I shoot Leica M and Sony and not giving up either any time soon. 

Based upon what you wrote, the SL2-S might a be a good compromise for what you are currently looking for. 

[Alistairm]

A very personal choice. 

The SL2 isn’t too large with M lenses, has that gorgeous EVF, IBIS and is more versatile. But the M10R is magnificent and, of course, has a rangefinder. 
 

If you’re stressed about missing focus on an M, then the SL2 is still a fantastic way to enjoyM lenses.

[augustwest100]

You guys are the best! I really do appreciate the responses, even though I know there really is "no answer." LBJ2 is appealing to the part of my brain saying "Use the Sony when you want speed and accuracy and versatility" and pick up an M for those times you want to slow things down and enjoy the use of the Rangefinder.  It sounds like a great idea if I can get my arms around the added cost. On the other hand Alistairm is getting to that part in my brain that says "sell the A9 and use the SL2 with the added bonus of having the M lens choices for when I want to keep it lighter." In that case, I would be ok until I decided to get an SL lens. This introduces a new variable: Money! Sounds like switching to the SL2 would be the easier to do now, because I have some good Sony glass to trade in, but then later, if I start drooling over an SL lens, it will start to cost me. On the other hand, I can stick with the Sony and equipment I have, and put new money towards an M body, but that would set me up for a while with two systems.

I suppose all being equal I would rather one single camera body just for the sake of keeping things simple.

Any strong feelings between the SL2 versus the SL2S in this scenario?

 

[LBJ2]

55 minutes ago, augustwest100 said:

You guys are the best! I really do appreciate the responses, even though I know there really is "no answer." LBJ2 is appealing to the part of my brain saying "Use the Sony when you want speed and accuracy and versatility" and pick up an M for those times you want to slow things down and enjoy the use of the Rangefinder.  It sounds like a great idea if I can get my arms around the added cost. On the other hand Alistairm is getting to that part in my brain that says "sell the A9 and use the SL2 with the added bonus of having the M lens choices for when I want to keep it lighter." In that case, I would be ok until I decided to get an SL lens. This introduces a new variable: Money! Sounds like switching to the SL2 would be the easier to do now, because I have some good Sony glass to trade in, but then later, if I start drooling over an SL lens, it will start to cost me. On the other hand, I can stick with the Sony and equipment I have, and put new money towards an M body, but that would set me up for a while with two systems.

I suppose all being equal I would rather one single camera body just for the sake of keeping things simple.

Any strong feelings between the SL2 versus the SL2S in this scenario?

 

One of the reasons I mentioned SL2-S for your scenario is because as you are already used to very fast processing and AF with the A9 @ 24MPs, you might feel more comfortable the SL2-S than the slightly slower processing and AF of the SL2. OTOH, the SL2 is due the new AF update soon. 

For me personally the ideal situation is shooting both Leica M and Sony ( two very different system approaches at the top of their game IMO) and every once in a while adapting my M lenses to the 61MP Sony, just because I can!  Ha Ha. P.S. Don't forget about Zone Focusing with the Leica M--it can be just as fast if not faster than any AF technology. 

[augustwest100]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, I actually love zone focusing more than the Sony autofocus! For street photography it works great! And the summicron 35mm is super sharp stopped down. I really do not mind a slow autofocus. I come from the days where the Nikon autofocus lens would sound like someone using a drill. Do you think the SL2 has more dynamic range than the SL2S? Also, I tried a used one in a store and the EVF was super laggy. I started thinking after I left the store that maybe the settings were wrong, like it was on a low shutter speed and closed aperture or something. It was worse than the visoflex...I'm assuming that is not the "normal" evf experience for the SL2 right? Are there any issues with the SL2 viewfinder like I describe?

[LBJ2]

Have you seen this already?

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Leica SL2,Leica SL2-S

If you add the A9 to the above chart, seems SL2-S and the A9 DR are on par.  I’d go back to the shop and investigate the EVF settings and try in good light if you can. I’ve never used an SL/2/S but I don’t remember reading complaints about EVF lag, but also you may be used to the A9’s EVF?

 

 

[John Miranda]

Having used Nikon DSLR's for over 15 years, and in the past 3 years, M-10x cameras, one approach as others suggested might be to get the Visoflex 20.  

When I want minimalist, I work off the rangefinder glass, when I want to be more careful in a particular landscape, the Visoflex gives the additional aides.  

The chief two things I still get out of a Nikon D850 is speed via autofocus, and long lenses for wildlife.  Honestly, and technically, more D850 shots might be keepers because of the camera's automation, but in terms of enjoying the process of photography, simplicity, weight, less conspicuous, the M10-R wins.  

I'm hanging on to the Nikon for now, the D850 is a wonderful and highly capable camera, but it doesn't get as much use as the Leica.  But ultimately, this is a personal choice based on what draws you to photography as digital cameras have become incredibly capable in the past few years.

[newtoleica]

Interesting Q. I suppose my work is similar to yours in that I don't do sports, wildlife or macro.

I've also used a lot of different cameras in the past including Nikons, Leica (M9, MM, M240), Micro 4:3 and Sony (RX1R, A7R, A7Riv). I also shoot a lot of film on a variety of Olympus OM system cameras. I like to shoot film with 'paired' cameras with different stocks and have used an MM and M9 similarly in the past.

I've just had a system revision as follows:

A digital camera with AF and an EVF for causal photography, family stuff and when I just want to carry one camera around: OUT- Sony A7R11v+35/55/85 Sony lenses IN: Leica Q2

Serious photography: OUT A whole bunch of Olympus OM film gear that has suddenly gone up hugely in value but that I didn't use much (I had 8 bodies and 18 lenses) IN: Leica M10P, M Monochrom (1st ed), for film M7, M6TTL black paint. Summilux 24, 35, Summicron APO 50, Elmarit 90.

Keeping a pair of OM4Ti, 3ti and OM2 and 21/24/35/85 Zuiko lenses but not using them currently.

So in essence a Q2 is a very good replacement for the Sony and matches the Leica Ms better, if I want longer reach I can take the M10P out with the 50 and 90 to go with it. I have an M pair and an M film pair and 4 wonderful lenses. I thought the SL was too heavy and big and if I want to pinpoint focus on the 90 I can use the 020 visioflex. If you're worried about VF blackout and fast focus at 90mm then this isn't the system for you.

Sure I miss some shots with the M rangefinder, but being honest the AF misses sometimes too, even Sony's ridiculously complex system.

Edited February 5, 2021 by newtoleica

[augustwest100]

That is some gear change, Brendan! You went from a duffel bag of gear to a camera bag of gear! I'm really trying to minimize because I also get stressed about which camera and lens to take with me. (Fear of missing out).  I can relate to what you said about swapping the Sony for the Q2, though. At least it eliminates the thinking about which lens to attach. I figured I would use the A9 as an "all arounder" and I have a 25, a 55, a 24-70 and a 70-200. But 90% of the time I either have the 55 on it or I adapt my summicron 35! The 24-70 makes the camera front heavy and just heavy in general for me. Most people that gravitate towards M systems are responding to something beyond just specs. I just realized something about myself through the process of talking with all of you. Isn't it interesting: I had the choice to post this M versus SL2 dilemma in either the M forum or the SL forum. I chose the M forum. Hmmm... 

 

[a.noctilux]

Having posted here IS a sign I think that you inclined to the M.

 

As side note, in M system, user "fitness" can be mandatory.

Good (or well corrected) eyesight, good/agile digits to focus and hold/tripping shutter, and so on.

 

In Leica SL/Sony/etc. more automated functioning like AF, so less involving fitness of user.

User must choose his camp, but in many situations, one system can NOT replace the other.

[Lichozaur]

I recently switched from Sony a7iii to Leica Q2 due to all of the reasons mentioned above. Now, I am already thinking about another Leica camera and I am also trying to figure out wether to go with SL2/SL2s/M10.  Q2 is amazing as it is,  IQ is light years ahead of anything I could get from Sony - the only drawback is being stuck with one wide lens, and in the past my most used lens was Sigma 105. I have never had a chance to try out rangefinder a camera, so I’ll definitely need to do it before committing.

is there any technical advantage (dynamic range/tonality/iso/lowlight performance) to M10 in comparison to SL2/s?

Edited February 5, 2021 by Lichozaur

[lanetomlane]

Interesting question, I shoot both M and SL systems. Instead of the SL2S it may be worth thinking about buying an original SL which seems to be a great deal these days. For M's, I use the M10 and M9 Monochrom.

Mid last year I bought the SL2 and whilst I love it, I probably use the original SL more. I tend to use the SL2 mainly for landscapes, on a tripod, and need the extra resolution for printing large. However, I still find the original SL far exceeds my expectations for general handheld photography on the street, or generally walking around a city.

When the SL2S was released I did think about it, but then thought why.

Just a thought.

[Robert Blanko]

Am 5.2.2021 um 19:06 schrieb a.noctilux:

Having posted here IS a sign I think that you inclined to the M.

 

As side note, in M system, user "fitness" can be mandatory.

Good (or well corrected) eyesight, good/agile digits to focus and hold/tripping shutter, and so on.

 

In Leica SL/Sony/etc. more automated functioning like AF, so less involving fitness of user.

User must choose his camp, but in many situations, one system can NOT replace the other.

That was also my thought. @augustwest100 , you are an M-type user!

And even though the M system may require „user fitness“ , the SL-system may require another type of user fitness to lug around the gear... 😉

[newtoleica]

On 2/5/2021 at 2:27 PM, augustwest100 said:

That is some gear change, Brendan! You went from a duffel bag of gear to a camera bag of gear! I'm really trying to minimize because I also get stressed about which camera and lens to take with me. (Fear of missing out).  I can relate to what you said about swapping the Sony for the Q2, though. At least it eliminates the thinking about which lens to attach. I figured I would use the A9 as an "all arounder" and I have a 25, a 55, a 24-70 and a 70-200. But 90% of the time I either have the 55 on it or I adapt my summicron 35! The 24-70 makes the camera front heavy and just heavy in general for me. Most people that gravitate towards M systems are responding to something beyond just specs. I just realized something about myself through the process of talking with all of you. Isn't it interesting: I had the choice to post this M versus SL2 dilemma in either the M forum or the SL forum. I chose the M forum. Hmmm... 

 

Laughing.... I never go out with more than my Billingham Hadley small can hold..

 

[augustwest100]

Small update: I did get back to the store where I looked at an SL2, and the EVF worked fine. I believe the last time I saw it, the aperture was probably set to something like f16 indoors and the iso was super high to compensate and as a result the view was very laggy and splotchy. This time everything worked as expected.

This is a never-ending riddle. If you trick out an SL2 with an M lens, or you use a very compact autofocus option like the Sigma 45mm, you can have a system where the size  and weight are not that objectionable compared to an M. Then, you have flexibility to use a larger lens when you need to. However, if you go with an M system, you can have the joy of simplicity, and when you really need it, you can get a visoflex which is let's face it, not the best evf out there but usable.

The reason we go around and around with this is probably this: if I were to stick with an M lens on an SL2 to keep the size and weight down, and if the autofocus lenses are going to be relatively large and heavy anyway, then why not just go with the M?! 

I have a better way to look at things: I'll just get them both, eventually. Now, that settled, which should I buy first 😁

 

[alainD]

Yes, you may end up with both SL and M systems... The way I sorted that dilemma is to have the SL2 for color work, pro shooting and an M10 monochrom for personal/fine art work...

Alain

[P1505]

I seem to be in the same position as you and have decided:

- to buy an M10 because the RF experience is not easily replaced. And everyone keen on photography needs to own an M at some point.

- to keep the SL 601 to be my all weather camera or where I really need auto focus. Some days my contact lenses don’t tend to work so well

- to also keep the Q because it’s just so damn lovely to walk around with on family days out.

Now this does mean finding more money whilst also building a house, in an economic downturn when my partner is out of work. But life is very short, as we’ve all recently been reminded, and you just have to go for it.

Whatever you buy, put cash aside for interesting days out on your own with your new friend - nothing worse than a new camera in the same surroundings.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[leicameech]

The SL2 (either one of them) is hard to beat with M lenses. The rangefinder experience is hard to beat period (if that's what you like to shoot). The Visoflex is...not that great, but it definitely does its job. Ruins the look of the camera (I know, I know, who cares). If I were going to get an M and use the EVF more often than the RF, then I would go for an SL2 with an M lens (which I did, but not for that reason). It's got the better VF, image stabilization, and ability to shoot at shutter speeds that are faster (and in the case of the SL2, much faster) shutter speeds than the 1/4000th of a second the M10 goes to, which allows you to shoot wide open without an ND filter during the day, which is cool. 

M experience is unique and irreplaceable, as P1505 mentioned above. 100% agree. SL2 gives all other practical advantages, whether with the L mount lenses or M lenses (which you already have), and costs a significant chunk less. It's more versatile and a much better value. With M lenses it's fantastic, and not too much bigger than an M. I'd be lying if I said I don't wish I had a digital M though. I love the RF experience and there's something about only shooting my M lens on my SL2 that seems kind of wrong. It's awesome and I love everything about it, but it feels like it belongs on an M. SL gives you options at the cost of a bigger camera that's not as "personal" as an M, while the M gives you a "this is my camera" type of feel at a higher price and the cost of some very useful features. Sounds like you'll have to get both!