Open question to SL and M systems owners

[o2mpx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Since acquiring a SL system from SL601 to now SL2, with an interim S1r and S5ii, with Leica 16-35/24-90 zooms, my use of the M system (M10-r/21/35/50/90/135+WATE/MATE) have gone down to almost zero. I plan to take the 21/35 for wides plus the 24-90 with the SL2 next trip. 

Have no plans to upgrade to M11 and keeping the M10-r being the last with the removable bottom plate.

Curious if other owners of SL and M setups usage patterns might have changed? Thanks. 

[dpitt]

If you have no use for the M10-R, give it to me! 🙂

I have the SL (601 since a year now), and a TL2 with EVF. My TL2 changed my shooting habits more than the SL. The TL2 with my Summicron 35 M v3 has become my travel kit next to my trusted M9 + Summcron 40C.

My SL mostly replaced my R8+DMR. It is often used with R lenses and sometimes M lenses, but still feels too bulky to take on a city walk. It stays close to my car when on holiday, and if I take it further, that is mostly with a nice zoom lens like the Vario Elmar 35-70 Macro R. 
 

Edited May 13, 2024 by dpitt

[Aperture 2]

I was a M user from M8 to M10, but after purchasing an SL2 my M got little usage and sold it. Now, one year later I got an M11p because I missed the small form factor and the optical finder that is always cristal clear - even under crushing sun. Keep both systems, they are complementary and you will regret and miss what you will sell…

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Yes, and more so with the SL3. I occasionally use my M11M as it's so much fun. But my M11 gets little use at the moment.

Another contributor is that the Hasselblad XCDV lenses on my X1DII give a sensational manual focus experience for only a small penalty in size and weight and they're simply stellar on the X2D.

The simple reality is that my eyes are not what they used to be. I don't yet need glasses full time but they do get tired more easily and my minimum focus has moved away a bit. This means dioptres aren't useful yet. M's are fun but not when your eyes are tired. I have been re-evaluating as to whether I should just leave the M system as it is currently.

And I also think I'm simply moving forward. I've always enjoyed the tech in cameras but never relied on it. Skill always trumps computing power. But after 40 years as a working and now semi-retired photographer, I'm letting the cameras do a bit more where useful. I don't shoot a lot of BiF (I do keep a Sony A1 for that stuff though) normally and the AF in my X2D and SL's (even SL2) is generally up to the task. I need accuracy over speed as I'm quite pedantic about having my AF hit the correct spot (probably a throwback to my wedding days). In the last 12 months I've started enjoying basic face AF and auto ISO, which I never used much before that. The SL2 and now SL3 meet my personal needs in AF and the IQ is absolutely stellar. I need IQ for the A0 prints I make on a regular basis. I just upgraded to be able to print 44" in house.

Lastly, I really like the SL3 in the hand. The camera needs some firmware work but it's small body changes really worked well for me. My A1/A7R5's are a bit on the small side. The SL3 is my Goldilocks camera, along with the X2D. The 2 best cameras I've ever used. I enjoy the SL3 as much as I do my M's.

And then there's the APO Summicrons.......

Gordon

[LocalHero1953]

I sold my M240 and did not replace it. It was squeezed out between the CL system (travel, social, carry around) and the SL system (photo sessions, portraits etc). The Q2 has replaced the CL, but the same logic applies. I still have film Ms to scratch my heritage nostalgic itch, but no hankering for a digital one. 

Edited May 13, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[beewee]

Similar feelings here. I shot the M8.2 for many years until I got an M10. Overtime I built up a decent M lens kit. When I got the SL2-S, my M bodies and lenses have mostly sat in a case and my L-mount lens kit has grown to eclipse my M lens kit. I still have both and I keep the M8.2 for nostalgia and also because it takes pretty interesting near-infrared photos. The M10 is there for when I want a rangefinder shooting experience (which is rare) but it’s ’cheaper’ to hold onto it than to sell it and buy another M camera later. I can’t see myself going to 60 MP with an M system unless I upgrade most of my M lenses to benefit from the higher resolution and even then, in the absence of IBIS, there’s limited utility.

I think there’d need to be some major advancements in the M system before I’d consider upgrading from the M10. Maybe I’ll need to wait for the M13 or M14 when there’s IBIS, which requires a stacked sensor to do away with the mechanical shutter mechanism so there’s enough space, plus a hybrid viewfinder that has the utility of the X100VI and the resolution of the Q3/SL2/SL3.

[robb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ibis and the apo summicrons are so game changing…. SL2 and sl2-s are phenomenal for me.

I say x2d for me is better than an M

do I still want to add another M?  Yes.. but only with ibis.

Robb

[IkarusJohn]

I am quite the opposite to most of the above.

I started my Leica journey with the M9 (after 40 years or so of film Nikons). I flirted with EVF based cameras (Sonys and the TL) and sold them all as unsatisfactory. When the M9 corrosion hit, I kept my Monochrom (Henri) and opted for an M-A as a replacement. When the SL(601) came out, I was delighted as it was a universal body for Leica lenses.  I soon acquired the 3 zooms, the 50 Summilux & the APO Summicron all in L mount.

I lugged this lot all over the World, and backcountry here, and soon got tired if the weight.  I’m also not a fan of AF, and found the fly by wire focusing second to my M lenses.  Then, I looked at the focal lengths I have in both mounts and realised just how much duplication there is. I prefer the form factor of the M system, and felt the improved image quality of the L mount lenses didn’t warrant keeping both systems. So, the SL lenses have gone (only the 24-90 left to sell).

I’ll keep the SL(601) to use with my R mount 180/2.8 & extender, and with my M lenses, mostly because it’s hardly worth selling.  I do have an X2D with 38v as my single lens camera with AF and IBIS (it is a fantastic system), and a TL2 which I use with my 28 Summaron when I’m cycling or want something pocketable. If I decide to extend focal lengths in AF, it will be with XCD v lenses (the 25v and 90v or longer being likely candidates, and the limit)

I won’t be going back into the SL system, as fabulous as it is. The M system is my pleasure, and I’m very happy with the lenses I have in M mount.
 

[la1402]

I like my M11 and still prefer it for walking around and traveling to my SL3.  However, my wife’s recently acquired CL kit may proof good enough and more convenient.

[Markey]

I too prefer my M cameras to my SL2s.

Mainly down to form factor and the degree of involvement.

I just shoot for friends and post to the internet so have no requirement for those lovely APO lenses for the SL2s .

However it is easier to focus fast  M glass so it stays.

That and the equestrian shots although these days people want videos and they poll want they want by way of stills from those.

My 246 and CL get the most use although I have been briefly tempted by the SL3 but I think that I would find greater utility from an M10m 

[keeping_a_balance]

I have both and go in phases.  SL is I would say definitely gets more use in winter time and poor conditions which I find myself shooting in more and more these days.

However the M is still my ideal system (size/weight) and as the weather improves in Europe I find myself gravitating more and more to the M.

 

 

[Stuart Richardson]

A few months after getting the SL2, I sold my M10. Part of this was also just how much better the results out of the SL2 and L mount APO Summicrons are for my work. The very accurate contrast AF worked better for me than the rangefinder, particularly for lenses like the 90mm and 135mm lenses, but also because of all the tiny misalignments between lenses. Some reach infinity at the end of the focus range, some just a hair before etc. Without pulling out the EVF it was hard to get the very best out of the camera for landscape work, particularly in low light. I also never really loved the M10 sensor...if I recall correctly, my copy had a visible centerfold that could be made to appear if the files were pushed in low light. I also remember it having a lot of black/white pixels in long exposure night photos.  I am generally using the camera as a work tool and not something I carry on my shoulder all day long on a photo walk or in a city to take street photos etc. I use it in the studio and I take it into the field, where more often than not I use the car as a base for most of the gear, and take pictures within a km or so of the car. Eventually I decided to take a good deal on an M10M because it could function both as a compact camera and as a high ISO supplement for the SL2. I like it but it is what I thought it would be: a supplement. In general though, I like the SL2 so much that I will stick with it for several more years at least. Not interested in the SL3 or M11 at all really. Hoping an S4 is more interesting.

Edited May 14, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[EJS73]

I have other cameras as well but keep coming back to the M11 for the enjoyment factor and the results. Within the Leica ecosystem I do have a Q3, which I do really like as well, but sold my SL2S which I couldn't bond with.

[o2mpx]

Thanks for all the responses. There’s a fair amount of dual system owners using the M less, so good to know it’s similar to personal experience. 

Another related observation particularly reading another thread on M12 wish listing is that  many requested features may converge these 2 camera lines closer, which perhaps Leica might not want to do and lose the identity of the historically prominent M. 

Time will tell as we see SL4, M12 and their future iterations. 

[tomasis7]

one shouldnt forget that you can use a M lens from 1950 or even 1920. 

AF lenses come and go. 

 

[Markey]

It will be a sad day when Leica dilute the M model to the extent that it becomes an M in name only.

Its a fine line but should that day come Leica will find that it has little unique left to offer as a company.

The market may of course be the final arbiter and the sales of M bodies  become no longer cost effective for the company. 

It would be interesting to know the percentage of M sales against the companies other models.

 

[jdlaing]

50/50 for me.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Markey said:

It will be a sad day when Leica dilute the M model to the extent that it becomes an M in name only.

Its a fine line but should that day come Leica will find that it has little unique left to offer as a company.

The market may of course be the final arbiter and the sales of M bodies  become no longer cost effective for the company. 

It would be interesting to know the percentage of M sales against the companies other models.

 

The analog M bodies are not very cost effective either, I suppose. Leica is too small to risk losing their identity.

[Stuart Richardson]

Leica has never been more profitable, so I would guess that selling M cameras for nearly 10,000 dollars is working for them just fine. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jeff S]

44 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Leica has never been more profitable, so I would guess that selling M cameras for nearly 10,000 dollars is working for them just fine. 

Now if they can get the latest ones to work just fine, consistently, for their owners. And figure out how to quickly repair and return those and other items needing service.  Otherwise, likely not a recipe for continued success.

Jeff