Feedback from SL3 owners using M lenses exclusively

[o2mpx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Curious to know if there are SL3 owners using M lenses only. Have been on the fence about the M11 and thinking about skipping the model due to noise around issues across the M11 variants. One thought was to get a SL3 as their used prices are getting lower, until used M12's become available in 2-3 years' time? Additionally, since camera will be used for landscape (no street or people), most often used lenses are WATE/21/90/135 with 35 on occasion, a visoflex is pretty much permanently mounted on the current M10-R. SL3's Eve, ibis would be the big draw; offset would be weight and bulk, so no intention of getting into L mount lenses despite the universal praise for the APO's.

Appreciate all feedback, thanks.

[Photoworks]

your question has been asked often, but it is very subjective.

I use M lenses on the SL3 all the time, just to keep the size smaller. 

The quality is good, but they are just a little bit better on the M11, the difference is the lens correction and shading correction are better on M lenses with 6bit.

Then again you will find some other L Lenses are better on the SL3 than most M lenses. Just a better match and newer lens designs.

[JoshuaR]

I use my SL2-S with M lenses only. I don't enjoy the setup for fast action and candid photography of people—for that, I'd rather use my Ms—but for landscape and other "contemplative" types of photography it's a wonderful setup. The EVF is extraordinary and the camera feels great. I prefer the small size of M lenses and don't find the SL2-S burdensome with them attached.

For "no street or people," it's been great for me.

[NightPix]

When shooting landscapes I much prefer using my m-lenses on my SL2 and SL2s. I know the APO L-mount lenses can be superior technically, put I much prefer the experience with the m- lenses. Setting up a landscape shot is a process that lends itself to a more deliberate, manual experience for which the m-lenses are well suited. Plus I can easily take a bunch of m-lenses with me instead of lugging several larger, heavier L primes or a zoom. Even though the SL series. cameras are a bit larger and heavier than an M11, the EVF and ibis are really nice to have.  

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, NightPix said:

Plus I can easily take a bunch of m-lenses with me instead of lugging several larger, heavier L primes or a zoom. 

I’d much prefer the size/weight of carrying just the SL28-70 than 4 equivalent M primes, or the SL24-90 compared to 6 equivalent M lenses.  And no bag.  Different strokes.

[LD_50]

M10R weighs 660g + 93g VF2= 753g

SL3 weighs 854g + 70g ML adapter= 924g

Weight is close enough for me when shooting M lenses on both. 

For landscape work, I see no value in the Rangefinder so would always prefer the SL3 over M10 or M11 variant. 

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use mostly M lenses on my SL2. I do have a few sigma lenses if I need AF. I know the SL lenses really shine, but they’re far too expensive for me to outlay on that given what I sue the camera for.

Nothing to complain about with quality or portability - if you’re used to carrying a camera bag I haven’t run into a situation where my M in that bag couldn’t be swapped out for my SL2 and have the same sort of carrying experience.

That said, I much enjoy shooting with my M10s instead. I don’t like shooting with screens, even if it is a very nice EVF. On certain occasions I need the higher resolution I’ll happily use the SL2 with M adapter. 

[NightPix]

5 hours ago, Jeff S said:

And no bag.  Different strokes.

When I’m hiking in the Rockies and shooting landscapes I keep a 50 m on my camera and a 21 m in my vest pocket. The two m lenses are much lighter than my SL 24-70 or 2 SL primes. For me that works well, especially when bushwhacking in rough country, climbing over fallen trees, steep slopes, etc. where a bag would just be in the way. But like you said, different strokes. 

[Jeff S]

7 hours ago, NightPix said:

When I’m hiking in the Rockies and shooting landscapes I keep a 50 m on my camera and a 21 m in my vest pocket. The two m lenses are much lighter than my SL 24-70 or 2 SL primes. For me that works well, especially when bushwhacking in rough country, climbing over fallen trees, steep slopes, etc. where a bag would just be in the way. But like you said, different strokes. 

So do I; an M with one lens, no bag,  is my preferred hiking/compact setup.  But that’s not what you said, which was, “Plus I can easily take a bunch of M lenses with me instead (of the L lenses)…”  I don’t do that, and my response was that a small zoom was smaller and lighter than a bunch of M lenses.

 

[wattsy]

Not sure how any one does any serious hiking without a bag of some sort to carry clothing, water, etc. but I assume the latter conversation is specifically about camera bags. Personally, I take a Hadley Small (usually containing a Hasselblad 907x and 45P but I had my SL2-S and two lenses in it last time out) which I stuff it into the top of my rucksack whilst I'm actually hiking or scrambling in the mountains. What I don't do is hike with a camera swinging around my neck (though I did once descend Striding Edge wearing two shoulder bags – one on each shoulder with the straps crossed across my body – and it was a nightmare of swinging bags when I was trying to concentrate on maintaining good hand holds, etc.).

Edited June 27 by wattsy

[AndreaP75]

I’m very happy on how M lenses perform on the SL3. Due to astigmatism, I find quite tiring to focus through a rangefinder and my M cameras are getting less and less of a use. Before acquiring the SL3, I did compare a variety of Leica and Voigtlander lenses with both my M10R (now sold) and the M10 Monochrom. To my surprise, the performance was in fact better than what I remember from the first and second generation of the SL cameras (SL typ 601 and SL2). It seems that Leica has done further optimization on this respect. When viewing the images at 100% in both cases, I couldn’t identify any difference, if not for a slight vignetting on the SL3, but only on some lenses and with wide open aperture. 
I can comfortably shoot with a Color Skopar 21mm f4 or a Summaron 28mm without worries about color shifting or less corner resolution. It’s that good.

Thinking of landscape, I can say you can definately go ahead with the SL3 and a WATE. Anything above 50mm do not even require any testing.

Happy shooting,

Andrea

[Jeff S]

16 minutes ago, AndreaP75 said:

Due to astigmatism, I find quite tiring to focus through a rangefinder and my M cameras are getting less and less of a use.

My astigmatism was solved for M use decades ago by eyeglass prescription and thin, flexible frames. Walter also makes a correction eyepiece, but glasses work not only for looking through the VF, but for better seeing surroundings for photo opportunities.

[AndreaP75]

17 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

My astigmatism was solved for M use decades ago by eyeglass prescription and thin, flexible frames. Walter also makes a correction eyepiece, but glasses work not only for looking through the VF, but for better seeing surroundings for photo opportunities.

Thanks a lot Jeff, Ì went through Walter’s site and it looks very promising. I’d like to keep the M10 Monochrom but it has become a very tiring experience. Thanks for the tip!

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, AndreaP75 said:

Thanks a lot Jeff, Ì went through Walter’s site and it looks very promising. I’d like to keep the M10 Monochrom but it has become a very tiring experience. Thanks for the tip!

I don’t like or use one, for reason mentioned, and because of rotation, but others do.  Just glasses for me; never need to take them on and off when shooting, and deals with my light sensitivity, distance and astigmatism issues all in one.

[HansLee]

I have the SL3 and have mostly used M-mount or adapted M-mount lenses (M39 LTM, M42 and Minolta SR) on it.  I shoot mostly street or urban landscape and I find it works well. It does take some learning and adjustment if you are used to shooting with AF.  I do use zone focusing for certain moments and other times I have just learned to follow focus when I use shallow DoF for moving subjects. I find the experience more engaging. I do have one Tele-prime that is AF that I use once in awhile when I want critical focus.
 

[AndreaP75]

16 hours ago, Jeff S said:

I don’t like or use one, for reason mentioned, and because of rotation, but others do.  Just glasses for me; never need to take them on and off when shooting, and deals with my light sensitivity, distance and astigmatism issues all in one.

I got your point. Do you think a magnifier is useful when using glasses? Or you just rely on a thin frame to get “closer” to the viewfinder?

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, AndreaP75 said:

I got your point. Do you think a magnifier is useful when using glasses? Or you just rely on a thin frame to get “closer” to the viewfinder?

No; having used an M since the 80’s, judging frame lines is not a problem for me. Plus a magnifier would create more of an issue with seeing wider frame lines. And a magnifier without eye correction first would only magnify problems. Finally, a magnifier can reduce viewing contrast.  My 1.25 x has resided in a drawer for decades.

But, yes, attention to eyeglass frames (and lenses) can help. I do, however, use a +.5 diopter, in addition to my glasses, to optimize M focusing with my aging eyes.  
 

Eye conditions and viewing preferences are a personal matter.  My experience is that actual experimentation is best for determining practical solutions.  Some people, for instance, prefer using contacts, or bi-focal glasses, etc; I dislike both.

Edited June 28 by Jeff S