Which SL camera is best for M lenses?

[Patrickfoley@mac.com]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own a Leica SL3 and have in the past owned the SL2 and the SL. I also have an M11. And I'm thinking about selling my SL lenses and focusing just on M glass. The only thing holding me back is that I don't find the SL3 viewfinder good enough for accurate focusing - unless I use focus peaking, which I don't like.
 

I've seen people on this forum suggest that the SL2-s or SL3-s are best for M lenses. Is that correct? Do they provide a clearer viewfinder image than the SL3?

[jaapv]

 The SL2S at any rate saves you thousands at the same image quality as the SL3S and has an excellent viewfinder

[UliWer]

Well, for someone who already owns an SL3 advertising an SL2-S might look like a proposal to spend more money.

If one looks into the data sheets for the SL3, SL3-S and the SL2-S the specifications for the viewfinder are identical: 

Resolution: 5,760,000 dots, 60 fps or 120 fps, magnification: approx. 0.76x at aspect ratio: 3:2 / approx. 0.78x at aspect ratio:

4:3, frame coverage: 100%, exit pupil position: 21 mm, setting range –4/+2 dpt, with eye sensor for automatic switchover be-

tween viewfinder and LCD panel, time delay 0.005 s

Therefore you should not expect any differences.

 

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Patrickfoley@mac.com:

The only thing holding me back is that I don't find the SL3 viewfinder good enough for accurate focusing - unless I use focus peaking, which I don't like.

This sounds to me like an interesting contribution to the dispute about an EVF-M.

Edited February 28 by UliWer

[Stuart Richardson]

2 hours ago, Patrickfoley@mac.com said:

I own a Leica SL3 and have in the past owned the SL2 and the SL. I also have an M11. And I'm thinking about selling my SL lenses and focusing just on M glass. The only thing holding me back is that I don't find the SL3 viewfinder good enough for accurate focusing - unless I use focus peaking, which I don't like.
 

I've seen people on this forum suggest that the SL2-s or SL3-s are best for M lenses. Is that correct? Do they provide a clearer viewfinder image than the SL3?

I would suggest you trust in your own experience. You have already had all the cameras. If you don't think the viewfinder is good enough to focus, then it is not good enough to focus. The viewfinders are all the same within the same generation. If you don't like the experience of using M lenses on SL cameras and you don't want to use SL lenses, then it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to use an SL camera, does it?

[Biotar]

We have the EVF-resolution on the one hand and the sensor output on the other. The combination results in a sharp or better image. The image of the 601 and SL2-S appears cleaner than the higher-resolution SL-2 and SL-3 and allows good lenses to focus without focusing aids.

vor 27 Minuten schrieb UliWer:

This sounds to me like an interesting contribution to the dispute about an EVF-M.

That's why I think the M10 with EVF would have been the better solution.

[Dazzajl]

9 minutes ago, Biotar said:

We have the EVF-resolution on the one hand and the sensor output on the other. The combination results in a sharp or better image. The image of the 601 and SL2-S appears cleaner than the higher-resolution SL-2 and SL-3 and allows good lenses to focus without focusing aids.

 

That makes a lot of sense. My daily driver has much the same EVF spec as the SL2, delivering the image from 102MP and I find the lower res EVF of the SL 601 and it's 24MP sensor nicer with real manual focus lenses.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Patrickfoley@mac.com said:

 The only thing holding me back is that I don't find the SL3 viewfinder good enough for accurate focusing - unless I use focus peaking, which I don't like.
 

 

I dislike focus peaking on any camera, and disable it on my SL2, instead preferring magnification, if needed, via a turn of the focus ring, followed by a tap to the shutter release for return to full view.  

My M lenses (28/35/50) stay on my M bodies, where they focus and perform best. 

[costa43]

It's about as good an EVF as there is for adapting glass imo. The clarity and resolution is the same as the SL2s and SL2 so you are pretty scuppered I think. There may be a slight advantage with the lower MP bodies in challenging light when the ISO is getting worked but as an overall experience, I've not noticed much of a difference, definitely not significant enough to trade bodies solely for the benefit. Maybe hang on for the much rumoured EVF M and see what Leica come up with. (If anything at all).

Edited February 28 by costa43

[Dazzajl]

4 hours ago, Patrickfoley@mac.com said:

The only thing holding me back is that I don't find the SL3 viewfinder good enough for accurate focusing - unless I use focus peaking, which I don't like.

It’s really pretty good at letting you manual focus, give yourself time to adjust to using it. I love using my M lenses on the SL and if that works, the 3 should be just as good, EVF and sensor resolution taken into account. 
 

I did start off using focus peaking and magnification quite a lot but I really don’t bother anymore. Stick with it and you’ll get there. 

[Einst_Stein]

15 hours ago, Patrickfoley@mac.com said:

I own a Leica SL3 and have in the past owned the SL2 and the SL. I also have an M11. And I'm thinking about selling my SL lenses and focusing just on M glass. The only thing holding me back is that I don't find the SL3 viewfinder good enough for accurate focusing - unless I use focus peaking, which I don't like.
 

I've seen people on this forum suggest that the SL2-s or SL3-s are best for M lenses. Is that correct? Do they provide a clearer viewfinder image than the SL3?

I would suggest to check your eyes first, and check if the view finder focusing is tuned right, for your eye.

My experience, it's unlikely the M view finder to be better than the modern EVF. Also, I don't think hunting for a new camera makes more sense than getting used to focus peaking.

[V23]

17 hours ago, Patrickfoley@mac.com said:

I own a Leica SL3 and have in the past owned the SL2 and the SL. I also have an M11. And I'm thinking about selling my SL lenses and focusing just on M glass. The only thing holding me back is that I don't find the SL3 viewfinder good enough for accurate focusing - unless I use focus peaking, which I don't like.
 

I've seen people on this forum suggest that the SL2-s or SL3-s are best for M lenses. Is that correct? Do they provide a clearer viewfinder image than the SL3?

I am not trying to be funny here, but have your eyesight checked, I am able to focus my 1.4/50 Summilux M on my SL2-S as well as on SL3 without much of a problem close up as well as mid distance. Also make sure that the diopter adjustment is optimally adjusted to your eyesight.

[UliWer]

 

vor 17 Stunden schrieb Biotar:

We have the EVF-resolution on the one hand and the sensor output on the other. The combination results in a sharp or better image. The image of the 601 and SL2-S appears cleaner than the higher-resolution SL-2 and SL-3 and allows good lenses to focus without focusing aids.

 

So the sensor’s higher resolution causes less resolution in the finder? Would the finder refuse to resolve a higher output from the sensor? What would you say to somebody who told us that photos from a sensor with higher resolution look worse on the same PC-monitor?

[Photoworks]

There are slight but noticeable differences in some lighting conditions between SL2 and SL2s. 
This was associated with the backside illuminated sensor.

M lenses are best focus wide open on eny evf. if you shoot fast lenses and set wide open it is easy to focus on any SL.

Closing f-stop and focusing is challenging as you have difficulty finding the contrast between in-focus and out-of-focus. This is even harder with wide-angle lenses. It is often earlier to open up the F, focus, and close F to the desired spot.

The SL3 has the same EVF and back-illuminated sensor and it has a cleaner view in the low light of pushed ISO due to f11.

that said the same issue comes up with other manual lenses, R, Cinema on mirrorless cameras. Even the M camera with EVF is hard to focus without magnification or focus assist.

I like to use the 50 and up lenses wide open without assist, but when I use the 21mm lens I have to zoom in to focus even at wide open at 3.4F

 

[Biotar]

Am 1.3.2025 um 10:42 schrieb UliWer:

So the sensor’s higher resolution causes less resolution in the finder? Would the finder refuse to resolve a higher output from the sensor? What would you say to somebody who told us that photos from a sensor with higher resolution look worse on the same PC-monitor?

I mean the entire sensor output in the overview, without enlarging anything. The image of my SL2-S is cleaner than that of my Panasonic S1 - the pixels seem to be cleaner (they are because of the special sensor architecture), focusing is easier here.

The pixels of the SL-2 and SL-3 may already be too small for a corresponding focus accuracy without a zoom.

[FocusDot]

On 2/28/2025 at 1:39 PM, Patrickfoley@mac.com said:

And I'm thinking about selling my SL lenses and focusing just on M glass. The only thing holding me back is that I don't find the SL3 viewfinder good enough for accurate focusing - unless I use focus peaking, which I don't like.

I am surprised you don't find SL3 viewinder good enough to focus on M glass? Being very easy to focus on M lenses was the most important reason for me to sell my M camera and buy SL (to begin with, which I updated to SL2/SL2s later on still with same experience). 

My experience is fast, easy and precise focusing regardless if I use focus peaking, magnifying chosen focus point or don't use any help at all...  🤔

[tom0511]

Am 4.3.2025 um 22:44 schrieb Biotar:

I mean the entire sensor output in the overview, without enlarging anything. The image of my SL2-S is cleaner than that of my Panasonic S1 - the pixels seem to be cleaner (they are because of the special sensor architecture), focusing is easier here.

The pixels of the SL-2 and SL-3 may already be too small for a corresponding focus accuracy without a zoom.

this is interesting.