Possibly moving from M to SL and need advice on which one...

[petereprice]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

I wear glasses and have been challenged for the past year with seeing the full rangefinder view especially with wider lenses like the 35mm f1.4 Summilux M and of course the 28 Summicron M.  Because I can't often see the frame lines unless I'm shooting in 50 or longer, My only other option is to shoot with the Visoflex, but I don't like how it impacts the nimble compact ergonomics of the M11-P I currently own.  

I'm starting to think that the M11-P is no longer a camera that fits my needs, but I still want to use the beautiful M glass I own, so I've been considering moving my M lenses over to an SL system, which I understand is the next best thing.  So I'm trying to decide which camera to choose.  I mainly shoot street, documentary and portrait photography.  The SL2-S and SL3-S appeal to me mostly on price and low light performance.  The SL3-S sounds great as it seems to have solved some issues with better AF, although I will mainly be shooting on M lenses.  I also hear from a lot of people that the SL2 is an amazing camera especially when shooting with M glass, but I also hear that it's not great in low light.  Which I think is important to me.  I used to own the SL3, but I didn't like it for a number of reasons, which I won't get into in this post.  So here are my options:

 

1.  SL3-S:  Since it's new it has all the latest and greatest, so I may down the line use the AF with AF lenses, but for now this purchase is mainly for M glass, so maybe it's not necessary to spend that kind of money especially if I'm going to just use it for M glass?

2.  SL2-S:  This seems like the best value option.  I can get a new in the box SL2-S for around $2600 right now, and it has great low light and if I'm using it just with M glass for now, it seems like a good option

3.  SL2:  I keep hearing how magical this sensor is.  And it's currently around $3300 or less used.  My only concern with this is that I hear it's not great with low light and I seem to always find myself in low light situations.

I'm leaving the SL3 out because I used to own it and it's also the most expensive so I don't see a use case where this makes sense.  But of course if you feel I'm overlooking something please convince me!  

Which one would you pick if your primary use case is to migrate the use of M glass from an M11 to an SL body, and you shoot documentary, street, Family and Portrait works?

 

Thanks!!

 

Edited February 26 by petereprice

[Advertisement]

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

[Smogg]

Why don't you want to wait for EVF-M?

[petereprice]

That's still just a rumor, from what I gathered.

[costa43]

SL2 - resolution priority. If you want 47mp and are not shooting above 3200iso very often then this is the camera for you.

SL2s - lowlight priority/video

SL3s - Would not consider it for M glass use over the two above options. It's just released and you would be paying full whack for a camera that does what the SL2s does for your use case. Unless you need its new video features or you are planning on utilising the improved AF with native glass.

I own an SL2s and use it with M glass. It works great and the lowlight performance on the camera is the best I have experienced for a colour model. I use it in auto ISO mode up to 25000 with good results even at the higher end. The image has noise but it retains detail and does not smear and lose colour fidelity as quickly as other sensors I have used. 

There is talk of an EVF M being released this year. It's just a strong rumour at the moment but if you are not in a hurry and prefer that form factor then it could be worth holding out for a while.

[Luke_Miller]

I shoot with the SL2 and just added the SL2-S. I'm assuming you are referring to ISO noise when you talk about low light performance.  With the SL2 I have shot as high as ISO 12500 and been happy with the results.  By happy I mean viewing the image full screen on my 4K monitor.  At that image size I see no ISO noise.  Now if I zoom in to 100% view it is a different story.  In my opinion whether the SL2 is usable in low light situations depends on the ultimate use of the image. If the image is to be used at or near full resolution the noise will be very apparent and noise reduction techniques are necessary. If downsized to 4K (or smaller) on the long edge they will be fine.  If that works for you then the SL2 will also give you excellent high-resolution images in good light.

The SL2-S is substantially better in terms of high ISO noise, but then you are limited to 24 mpx. That is a big drop from your M11 and if I resize my SL2 12500 shots to 24 mpx there is not much difference in ISO noise compared to SL2-S 12500 shots.

I shoot with M bodies as well and use a corrective diopter eyepiece, so I don't need to wear my glasses.  That has fully restored my ability to see the framelines and focus accurately.  Eyepieces that correct for astigmatism are also available.

[jaapv]

The real difference in resolution between 47 and 24 is rather small in practice. There are some uses where it makes sense, like heavy cropping or very critical landscape work printed (very) large, but for most of us mere mortals it makes little if any difference. I feel that general photography 24 MP is the sweet spot. So my advice would be the SL2S - arguably the best all-round camera Leica ever built. Maybe the SL3S beats it by a small margin - but not a thousands-of-dollars margin.  

[jrichie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

28 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The real difference in resolution between 47 and 24 is rather small in practice. There are some uses where it makes sense, like heavy cropping or very critical landscape work printed (very) large, but for most of us mere mortals it makes little if any difference. I feel that general photography 24 MP is the sweet spot. So my advice would be the SL2S - arguably the best all-round camera Leica ever built. Maybe the SL3S beats it by a small margin - but not a thousands-of-dollars margin.  

I agree with this.

I have the same issues as the original post hence my interest in the M EVF.  I find it difficult to frame anything less than a 50mm too which is very annoying to the point of why do I bother with this camera [apart from loving the M experience, and also a preference for 50mm].

I had the SL2 S and sold it as I found it too big for my use, however it was excellent with the M lenses and the image quality was good.  I also agree with the 24mp sweet spot.

My personal thoughts on all this are to wait out the year, see if the EVF M arrives and then make a decision.

 

[Einst_Stein]

Always choose the latest that you don't mind to pay.  Between the SLx and SLx-S, choose the -S since you care low light. 

[Jeff S]

Have you tried glasses that have thin, flexible frames (and scratch resistant lenses) that provide a broader view when pressed against the VF?  I’ve worked with opticians over the years to accommodate.

[Eoin]

Much the same problem as the OP, I wear glasses which means I can’t always see the frame lines. The screw in diopters mostly get around that problem to 28mm, but creates issues with the fact I can’t operate the screen or change a setting without dropping glasses back down off the top of my head. Visoflex makes me feel like I’m using a digital camera from the 2000’s. But in saying all that, I soldier on because I enjoy the whole M photography experience and it is my preferred system. If I need accurate framing I’ll generally use the back screen or crop later in post.

The Q2M is my lazy P&S and the SL2/SL2S when I need AF and automation with a range of focal lengths. They are to my mind excellent systems with almost common button/menu layouts, but for me lack the engaging tactile photography experience I’ve enjoyed throughout my lifetime before the advent of automated photography.

SL2 for resolution and cropping, SL2S for low light needs but both are interchangeable unless the situation is pretty extreme and beyond what was considered acceptable back is film days.

SL2/SL2S are excellent value in the Leica sphere, APO lens prices 2nd hand comparable with 2nd hand Summilux-M 35 or 50 with plenty of 3rd party options. But as a system it’s large, heavy and you know you’re carrying something really solid. The Rock n Roll strap helps reduce the effects of the weight for me.

 

Good as the SL & Q are, there is no way I’d give up my M … ever!.

[hoolyproductions]

13 hours ago, jaapv said:

The real difference in resolution between 47 and 24 is rather small in practice. There are some uses where it makes sense, like heavy cropping or very critical landscape work printed (very) large, but for most of us mere mortals it makes little if any difference. I feel that general photography 24 MP is the sweet spot. So my advice would be the SL2S - arguably the best all-round camera Leica ever built. Maybe the SL3S beats it by a small margin - but not a thousands-of-dollars margin.  

For you specific situation I would tend to agree with the above. The SL3-S has very similar high ISO performance to the SL2-S. The changes to the button layout in the SL3-S would be likely of less importance for using with M lenses. So unless you are particularly keen on the tilting screen or having (for the future) a little better AF, sounds like SL2-S. Also as further justification I would not be surprised if SL2-S prices improve a little in the next year or two - or at least won't sink much further - so you could upgrade later.

I note the positive comments above on the SL2 noise performance. We all respond differently to noise but I found the SL2 quite disappointing in this regard and stuck to my SL2-S unless I was working in decent light.

Edited February 27 by hoolyproductions

[costa43]

The SL2s is just over 2k. Even if you get that and sell it on if something else comes along like an EVF M, you will lose an insignificant amount, if anything at all. It will hover around the 2k ish mark for ages before coming down more I reckon. It's dynamic range according to Photons to Photos is even a little better than the newer SL3s if we are nitpicking.

Edited February 27 by costa43

[LocalHero1953]

For those with mobility issues to go with eyesight issues, the tilt screen of the SL3/SL3S is not to be sneezed at if you want to stick to manual focus lenses. For some this is irrelevant and an ugly addition at the back, for others it's the most valuable feature of the new bodies. Even for those without mobility issues, it is handy for shooting from a high vantage point (over crowds, fences etc).

Edited February 27 by LocalHero1953

[JoshuaR]

For me, the relatively low cost of the SL2-S right now was a determining factor when I bought one. Ir's just too good a deal. The SL3-S improvements seem less compelling if you don't use autofocus. An EVF M sounds cool, but will probably cost 3x the cost of a used SL2-S.

I've also experienced the color out of the camera, not just in low light but also in daylight, to be the best I've ever used.

Personally, I've found the SL experience much more helpful on the longer end than on the wider end. Yes, I can more accurately frame my 28mm Summicron through the SL viewfinder, but on the other hand I must often zoom in to confirm focus. Whereas, on the M, I frame loosely, but can confirm focus instantly and intuitively using the rangefinder. It's all horses for courses, but overall I prefer the loose-but-fast shooting style on the M to the precise-but-slower style on the SL. The M lens I use most on my SL2-S is the 50 Lux ASPH. So, that might be something to consider if your main purpose in moving to an SL is wide-angle lenses.

[Luke_Miller]

8 hours ago, hoolyproductions said:

I note the positive comments above on the SL2 noise performance. We all respond differently to noise but I found the SL2 quite disappointing in this regard and stuck to my SL2-S unless I was working in decent light.

I don't disagree.  If one prefers to view 47+ mpx images at 100% view they will see lots of noise in low light shots.  If one views the same image at end use resolution, they may be ok with the noise in the image.  When I was primarily a Nikon shooter I had the 20.8 mpx D5 for low light and the 45 mpx D850 for good light. When I opened my first D850 image taken at higher ISO I was very disappointed with the noise.  What I discovered eventually was if I resized my noisy D850 images to the same resolution as that of my D5 the resulting image noise was pretty much the same had I taken the shot with my D5.  So my D850 (like my SL2 now) gave me the best of both worlds.  Gorgeous 45 mpx (47 mpx SL2) shots in good light and noise free shots at lower resolutions in poor light. Now with their pro bodies Nikon has moved away from producing lower resolution bodies for low light situations and high resolution bodies for good light.  The Z9 & Z8 share the same 45.7 mpx sensor. To get 24 mpx you have to move down to their mid-range cameras.

Not to say I don't appreciate what my SL2-S brings to the table.  The smaller file sizes are useful. I use electronic shutter often and the 24 mpx sensor has a bit quicker read time.  I often shoot events with two bodies and the SL2-S provides a less expensive mate for my SL2.  Noise performance was not a factor since at 24 mpx I don't see much difference.  But as in most things, YMMV.

[Mak67]

Beware, make sure to try before you buy, shooting SL with M lenses, is really a différent expérience than shooting the same lens on a rangefinder. Personaly i love focusing on M and pretty hate shooting manual focus lenses on SL except for landscape, or thing you have time ... You'll have to zoom in the image, focus, close the aperture and shoot, or Close the aperture at working aperture, zoom in, focus but stop down then focusing can be not so easy ... Nothing to compare to M expérience.

 

[Chris W]

I like M focussing too, but I've used M lenses with adapters on other bodies (FP, SL 601) and never had to change aperture to focus.

I guess if you are at f1.4 or something?

Usually I'm ok with focus peaking, but sometimes zoom in to confirm focus.

[costa43]

Just now, Chris W said:

I like M focussing too, but I've used M lenses with adapters on other bodies (FP, SL 601) and never had to change aperture to focus.

I guess if you are at f1.4 or something?

Usually I'm ok with focus peaking, but sometimes zoom in to confirm focus.

I find that it tends to be the other way for me. If I want critical focus on something when stopped down I zoom in as the depth of field makes it too hard for me to see the point of focus by just using the EVF without punching in. I find it a fair bit easier when wide open to use the EVF only without zooming. For this reason, I also prefer the M for everyday manual lens use. My preference for movement is to always have my eye on the image without zooming in and risk losing the moment. Where the SL comes into its own for me with manual lenses is when you are shooting at wide apertures and want that critical focus on an eye for example when shooting a portrait. Its perfect for this. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Archiver]

On 2/27/2025 at 10:19 PM, JoshuaR said:

Personally, I've found the SL experience much more helpful on the longer end than on the wider end. Yes, I can more accurately frame my 28mm Summicron through the SL viewfinder, but on the other hand I must often zoom in to confirm focus. Whereas, on the M, I frame loosely, but can confirm focus instantly and intuitively using the rangefinder. It's all horses for courses, but overall I prefer the loose-but-fast shooting style on the M to the precise-but-slower style on the SL. The M lens I use most on my SL2-S is the 50 Lux ASPH. So, that might be something to consider if your main purpose in moving to an SL is wide-angle lenses.

My current manual focusing process with the SL2S is to dial the lens in as I'm raising it to my eye, like with a M body. Then I click the back button for the magnified view come on, and it's getting easier and easier to dial in precise focus, then recompose after tapping the shutter button. It's almost as fast as using the rangefinder patch, just a couple more clicks. What actually slows me down is that momentary wait for the EVF to come alive when in EVF Extended mode, and the position of the power button on the side opposite the shooting hand.

[jaapv]

I find it easier and faster to put magnification under the Fn function ( push in) of the thumb wheel.