NEXT! M-EV1 with a L-mount

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

For me, it's the SL body that too big (and an awkward shape). Yes, the big zooms and Summilux 50 are big and heavy, but I tried the Apo-Summicrons on the CL and I found it acceptable. I'm sure a full-frame body smaller than the SL would be larger than the CL, but I'd still look forward to it.

Of course if you add a grip and Viso to the M you're going to get closer to the SL; but for a fair comparison you should add a grip to the SL as well.

I never felt the need for a grip on the M, and disliked adding a Viso - it always caught when inserting or removing it from a bag.

I have a barely used CL I need to sell. I always felt it needed a grip for me to feel comfortable not dropping it, and then once you put a lens on it other then the 18mm pancake, it's practically the size of an M, so may as well take the M. Failed experiment for me but I've been lazy about selling it. 

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

4 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

I have a barely used CL I need to sell. I always felt it needed a grip for me to feel comfortable not dropping it, and then once you put a lens on it other then the 18mm pancake, it's practically the size of an M, so may as well take the M. Failed experiment for me but I've been lazy about selling it. 

I never had that sense - different hand sizes, I guess.
And I prefer AF - or at least the option.

[SrMi]

53 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

I have a barely used CL I need to sell. I always felt it needed a grip for me to feel comfortable not dropping it, and then once you put a lens on it other then the 18mm pancake, it's practically the size of an M, so may as well take the M. Failed experiment for me but I've been lazy about selling it. 

CL is still one of my favorite cameras (I have several CL bodies).  The size/weight and the simplicity are unbeatable.

Edited yesterday at 04:17 PM by SrMi

[Stuart Richardson]

On 10/28/2025 at 2:49 AM, dsalamena said:

 

The SL is perfect in many ways, but it's simply too big and heavy for travel and street photography. A larger CL-style camera with a full-frame sensor and image stabilization would be perfect for this type of photography.

 

Yes, but that is the point. The SL was not designed to be a travel and street photography camera. That is the M and the Q series. The SL and S cameras were designed for rugged, maximum image quality, professional photography. That was their entire system concept, especially in the beginning. The lenses are huge, the body was rugged and large to balance properly with the big, no optical compromise lenses. What we are seeing now is concept dilution, as the system has shrunk down and pivots ever further from its core concept. It gets smaller, the design becomes more generic and the lenses get worse (outside the APO Summicrons, almost every new lens introduced has been optically inferior to the lenses it launched with, like the 24-90 and 90-280). I really wish Leica would have stuck with their concept of a 35mm Leica S. I think they peaked with the SL2, but even that compromised a few things from the original (the 4 button interface, bolder design, GPS etc). 

As for an M style L mount camera...I am not really against it, but I certainly don't want that to be the next SL. One thing is for sure, holding an M camera with one of the better L mount lenses attached is sure to be very uncomfortable, so at the very least they would need to design a good grip. 

[zlatkob]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

 

As for an M style L mount camera...I am not really against it, but I certainly don't want that to be the next SL. One thing is for sure, holding an M camera with one of the better L mount lenses attached is sure to be very uncomfortable, so at the very least they would need to design a good grip. 

Of course, the M-style L-mount camera should be an additional L-mount camera, not a replacement of the SL. What you call concept dilution is market expansion to meet the needs of different buyers, or to meet buyers' multiple needs. The big SL as a concept is in no way diminished or diluted by having a smaller M-style L-mount camera available as an alternative.

[LocalHero1953]

The dilution already comes through the L-mount alliance: even after the CL, there are small cameras (S9, fp/fpL), video (BM, DJI). But there is a missing equivalent of the S9 or fpL with built in EVF - a gap that Leica could fill.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The dilution already comes through the L-mount alliance: even after the CL, there are small cameras (S9, fp/fpL), video (BM, DJI). But there is a missing equivalent of the S9 or fpL with built in EVF - a gap that Leica could fill.

+1 but for what AF lenses? SL's would be too big. Sigma or rebadged Sigma?

[LocalHero1953]

16 minutes ago, lct said:

+1 but for what AF lenses? SL's would be too big. Sigma or rebadged Sigma?

Personally I found the Apo-Summicrons large but acceptable on the CL, so a larger body would be OK.
YMMV

 

[Stuart Richardson]

5 hours ago, zlatkob said:

Of course, the M-style L-mount camera should be an additional L-mount camera, not a replacement of the SL. What you call concept dilution is market expansion to meet the needs of different buyers, or to meet buyers' multiple needs. The big SL as a concept is in no way diminished or diluted by having a smaller M-style L-mount camera available as an alternative.

I am not saying that adding another L mount body would be dilution, I am saying that the dilution has already happened in both the SL2 and especially in the SL3 and the new lenses, most of which are smaller and lighter, and while still good lenses they are mostly rebadges and perform worse than the original lenses. If they continue to go further down the road of compact and light I think they risk losing purpose. They tried it already with the TL and CL and those did not sell well enough to keep around. Meanwhile the M and Q do this well and sell well. I just find it frustrating that the amateur market in particular seems to want to push the system into the median, rather than embracing what is really more of a specialist system. The SL was not designed with street photography in mind, nor was it designed to be easy to carry for port of call visits on a cruise. It is a tool made for work: be that studio work, editorial, fashion, landscape and art. It was meant to be capable of producing extremely high image quality in a rugged, versatile package and to support professional workflows, like needing to capture both stills and video on the same shoot and being capable at both.  
 

It’s not that I am against a different L mount body…I would be happier if they did make a compact L mount body as long as they then left the SL4 to be more like the original SL and SL2 in body size and ergonomics. I do wish they would take a break from rebadging Sigma and Panasonic lenses, however, and start making some of their own. For example, a real, top quality tilt shift lens, a 1 to 1 macro (even though the Sigma 105 is superb, I would love to see Leica do their own), and even things like 135mm and 180mm Elmarits. Or even better, 35mm and 75mm Summiluxes. I don’t think we will get any of those, based on how they have been going, however.  

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

...with the TL and CL and those did not sell well enough to keep around. Meanwhile the M and Q do this well and sell well.

Of late, I've been spending time with the 24-90mm with the SL2 which in combination with the above has me wondering why Leica hasn't re-introduced the X Vario.  In my view, however you feel about the TL/CL, the marketplace problem (real or imagined) lay with the APS-C sensor in what had become a FF world.   I might imagine a third Q model with compact 24-70 zoom.  Personally, I'd be far more likely to pony up M-EV money for such a camera than an OVF-less M.

Edited 18 hours ago by Tailwagger

[LocalHero1953]

7 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I am not saying that adding another L mount body would be dilution, I am saying that the dilution has already happened in both the SL2 and especially in the SL3 and the new lenses, most of which are smaller and lighter, and while still good lenses they are mostly rebadges and perform worse than the original lenses. If they continue to go further down the road of compact and light I think they risk losing purpose. They tried it already with the TL and CL and those did not sell well enough to keep around. Meanwhile the M and Q do this well and sell well. I just find it frustrating that the amateur market in particular seems to want to push the system into the median, rather than embracing what is really more of a specialist system. The SL was not designed with street photography in mind, nor was it designed to be easy to carry for port of call visits on a cruise. It is a tool made for work: be that studio work, editorial, fashion, landscape and art. It was meant to be capable of producing extremely high image quality in a rugged, versatile package and to support professional workflows, like needing to capture both stills and video on the same shoot and being capable at both.  
 

It’s not that I am against a different L mount body…I would be happier if they did make a compact L mount body as long as they then left the SL4 to be more like the original SL and SL2 in body size and ergonomics. I do wish they would take a break from rebadging Sigma and Panasonic lenses, however, and start making some of their own. For example, a real, top quality tilt shift lens, a 1 to 1 macro (even though the Sigma 105 is superb, I would love to see Leica do their own), and even things like 135mm and 180mm Elmarits. Or even better, 35mm and 75mm Summiluxes. I don’t think we will get any of those, based on how they have been going, however.  

I can understand some of this, even though I don't agree that Leica has diluted their market (any dilution occurred when the L-mount alliance was launched). But I'm puzzled by your comments on the SL bodies: I've owned SL and SL2-S for most of their lives and now have the SL3-S, and can't see any significant push to the median. To my eye and hands the latter is simply an upgraded and improved version of the earlier ones; you lose little by staying with the SL2/2-S, but anyone buying new now will get the same practical tool now as they did then. Changes in buttons, shape and weight are mainly a matter of preference and habit: I didn't notice a significant difference in size/shape; with a lens is attached I don't notice a difference in weight; I find the simple buttons on the right to be faster and more accessible; and the tilt screen is a great practical improvement. A month in, the screen is the only change I still notice. I totally agree it is not intended as a street camera, nor a travel one, however much amateurs* use them as such.

My view of the L-system is that it is an ecosystem of lenses, with cameras made to support it from a number of brands. So I wish Leica would design and make more of their own L-mount lenses, if only to convince me they are still in the lens business, not just rebadging, or, in the case of M lenses, reissuing old designs or extending the focal range of current ones. One can fantasise: perhaps they are putting all their efforts into designing a new range of lenses for a mirrorless S4? or a new range of small L-mount lenses for a future smaller SL? Personally I would like a Summilux-SL 75 with similar performance to the Summilux-SL 50 - but I suspect I'll be dreaming of this for a long time - I'll have to stick to the Sigma 85. 

 

* probably 99% of Leica's market, including me.

Edited 12 hours ago by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

8 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I am not saying that adding another L mount body would be dilution, I am saying that the dilution has already happened in both the SL2 and especially in the SL3 and the new lenses, most of which are smaller and lighter, and while still good lenses they are mostly rebadges and perform worse than the original lenses. If they continue to go further down the road of compact and light I think they risk losing purpose. They tried it already with the TL and CL and those did not sell well enough to keep around. Meanwhile the M and Q do this well and sell well. I just find it frustrating that the amateur market in particular seems to want to push the system into the median, rather than embracing what is really more of a specialist system. The SL was not designed with street photography in mind, nor was it designed to be easy to carry for port of call visits on a cruise. It is a tool made for work: be that studio work, editorial, fashion, landscape and art. It was meant to be capable of producing extremely high image quality in a rugged, versatile package and to support professional workflows, like needing to capture both stills and video on the same shoot and being capable at both.  
 

It’s not that I am against a different L mount body…I would be happier if they did make a compact L mount body as long as they then left the SL4 to be more like the original SL and SL2 in body size and ergonomics. I do wish they would take a break from rebadging Sigma and Panasonic lenses, however, and start making some of their own. For example, a real, top quality tilt shift lens, a 1 to 1 macro (even though the Sigma 105 is superb, I would love to see Leica do their own), and even things like 135mm and 180mm Elmarits. Or even better, 35mm and 75mm Summiluxes. I don’t think we will get any of those, based on how they have been going, however.  

You make me feel rather out of place. And guilty for trespassing… For me the SL is a comfortable daily use camera. Now I learn that it is too heavy, large and well built to allow my use. I will have to sell my system off. And retreat into compacts. Or maybe my phone is to be my proper place in the photographic world. 
 

I would not even buy an M sized L camera. Too small and dainty in my hands, too unmatched to my lenses. I have used R ( and Canon during the digital interregnum) and M cameras side by side for decades. And you know, I have found that preference is coupled to the photographer, not the use case or physical properties. I prefer the SL for daily use and M for special outings. In the past I regularly used M. cameras with lenses up to 800 mm  and was happy. If a few hundred grams or even a few kilograms mattered how could I ever carry my wife‘s shopping for her?  The difference between an SL and M is no more than a pack of sugar. Does that really feel like a handicap? 

[Tailwagger]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

The difference between an SL and M is no more than a pack of sugar.

Whoa... $2000? Sugar has gotten pretty damn expensive over there! 😉

The issue with humping around the SL is, of course, not the body but rather lens weight and size, particularly when we're talking about Leica developed glass.  Even if a new body lost half a pound, unless one is accepting of the Sigma contemporary range or Pano plastic bodied lenses, all you've really gained, which I assume is the gist of your point, is a difficult to control, poorly balanced camera. 

I have grown very fond of the 24-90, which is without question the finest standard range zoom lens I've ever owned.  I haven't weighed the difference, but on the shoulder, there's no noticeable different in volume or weight between the SL2/24-90 and my standard M kit with the WATE along side of the 28 and 50mm 'luxes.  But where I have no problem carrying the shopping, so to speak, there is no denying holding that SL configuration to eye for much more than half a minute requires some commitment to gym reps.  For me, the added heft is worth the cost given the convenience to IQ ratio on offer, but I can see why many would be willing to trade some performance for a bit less fatigue after a day of shooting.  That said, if the current crop of lighter weight zooms fails to satisfy that desire, then perhaps going L mount wasn't the right choice in the first place.

[Stuart Richardson]

8 hours ago, jaapv said:

You make me feel rather out of place. And guilty for trespassing… For me the SL is a comfortable daily use camera. Now I learn that it is too heavy, large and well built to allow my use. I will have to sell my system off. And retreat into compacts. Or maybe my phone is to be my proper place in the photographic world. 
 

I think you are twisting my words. I am not saying you can't use the SL however you like. What I am trying to say is that the general direction of the SL camera and lenses has shifted towards the median since its introduction in 2015. The camera has become more like its competitors with each generation. I feel like that has been at the expense of what made it unique and so well suited to its design intention. The biggest complaint of youtubers and amateurs has been that the SL camera and lenses are too big and too heavy. Leica listened to this, and now the lenses are worse and the camera is not as nice to use ergonomically (in my view at least, obviously tastes differ). It's just my opinion, no one else has to agree. I just find it sad that what I feel like was the bold design and no-compromise lens design priority has for the most part given way to making it into more like everything else. 

[jaapv]

Warning: what follows ( and what went before) is an opinion. 
 

No - I am saying that I cannot accept that size or weight of a camera determine the usability and am not impressed by opinions of YouTubers and amateurs ( are professionals more muscular?). My point is that I find the internet argument about weight and bulk is mostly about a few ounce’s and centimeters.  I also fail to follow your lens argument. What do you mean with “worse”?  In general the larger lenses will surpass the smaller ones and the maximum quality behemoths are not really relevant for  general use by 95% of photographers. It simply only amplifies the flaws.  As are high megapixel numbers. Great for specialists, but how many photos would have been better taken on double the resolution?  In fact, quite a few would have been worse. Leica cooperates with the L Alliance because the quality of other manufacturers has reached a level that the sharing of optics makes sense. Why redo the work already done by Sigma when you can use a lens design that is at a level that meets your standards?  You go for other things like improving mechanics and haptics. And why now? Erwin Puts complained to me  that opening up a Leica revealed a Panasonic over a decade ago. 

[Stuart Richardson]

I think we disagree on the point of the system, so we are arguing past each other. To me the whole point of the system is those absolute image quality lenses and the bodies needed to get the most out of them. If 24mp with decent lenses were enough for my work, I don't think I would be using an SL...plenty of systems that can do that job for a lot less money. I liked when Leica would put out a lens and you could be near certain that it was the best lens available in that focal length. Now you can be assured that you can get the exact same thing for less than half the price by just buying the original Sigma or Panasonic lens. They have only put out two of their own lenses in L mount since 2019: the 21mm and 28mm APO Summicrons. Happy they are there, but I just wish they would do some more. 

[jaapv]

But a Leica lens at double the price would not be better. Times have changed. It is getting crowded at the top and Leica is concentrating on eye wateringly good and equally eye wateringly expensive large and bulky designs. On their own they would not keep the company afloat. So they clone designs that are still better than anything before. They could not do this on the M as quality needs size. And the camera needs to match the lens.