The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

replace M body with SL? opinions?

Paratom

Well-known member
You could look at the M vs SL question in a sort of philosophical/psychological way. And which you might go for depends on your style and, in a way, who you are.

The M could be better suited to the 'introverted', contemplative person; someone who is prepared to wander around until the best view of whatever it is comes into view; using the 'foot-zoom' rather than the optical one; someone prepared to wait for the opportune moment.

The SL might be better for the 'extroverted' spur-of the moment person; someone who seizes an opportunity, and fires away.

I'm not so sure how far I can push this argument; the M might well be better if you want to get up close and involved rather than being 'stand-offish'; a participant rather than an outside observer. That would reverse my initial arguments, for the participant would be 'extroverted' and the observer more 'introverted'. But then, perhaps you do both at different times.
Hi Robert,
interesting thought. The participant vs observer -IMO-depends more on the focal length than on the body. Even though the optical rangefinder maybe gives a more real feeling to the photographer than the EVF. Overall I agree with you that the M has allways been a camera which makes it easy to get close into the scene. But the SL with a small 35 or 50mm prime isnt bad either in this regard.

I think its cool how small the excellent 35/1.4asph or 50 Summicron (no matter if APO or non APO) are, if you look at comparable DSLR lenses.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Hi Robert,
interesting thought. The participant vs observer -IMO-depends more on the focal length than on the body. Even though the optical rangefinder maybe gives a more real feeling to the photographer than the EVF. Overall I agree with you that the M has allways been a camera which makes it easy to get close into the scene. But the SL with a small 35 or 50mm prime isnt bad either in this regard.

I think its cool how small the excellent 35/1.4asph or 50 Summicron (no matter if APO or non APO) are, if you look at comparable DSLR lenses.
I might agree, but the M lenses present much more of a limitation when it comes to close focusing than R or SL lenses both because of their close focus limits (.7 to 1m vs less than half that with most R lenses) and because of parallax. I'm not very sensitive to the "real feeling" provided by the viewfinder, and I use both cameras in pretty much the same way (albeit, I'm not using the howitzer class SL zoom but merely bulky R prime lenses ...).

Being unobtrusive and shooting close in to your subject is much more a matter of the photographer than the camera. Both the SL and the M-P are pretty darn quiet in operation; both can be used very unobtrusively if that's what you want to do. Heck, just yesterday I was shooting photos in a cafe with a Polaroid SX-70 (one of the least unobtrusive cameras I can imagine due to all the clattering about made by the big mirror flapping and the processing/print eject motor noise): I was amazed to discover that the people sitting less than four feet away from me, and looking right at me, had not realized that I had just made eight exposures and didn't notice the camera until I had the film door open to change the film pack and was tearing the film box apart!

I'm keeping my M-P and my SL ... and my Polaroids. ;-)

G
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
Hi Robert,
interesting thought. The participant vs observer -IMO-depends more on the focal length than on the body. Even though the optical rangefinder maybe gives a more real feeling to the photographer than the EVF. Overall I agree with you that the M has allways been a camera which makes it easy to get close into the scene. But the SL with a small 35 or 50mm prime isnt bad either in this regard.

I think its cool how small the excellent 35/1.4asph or 50 Summicron (no matter if APO or non APO) are, if you look at comparable DSLR lenses.
Even though the original M3 had a viewfinder for 50mm, I'd guess that the rangefinders in general are more suited to wide-angle lenses, say up to 50mm. And such lenses, as you say, are quite compact. The SL is – or seems to be – a much bigger camera; an M could just fit in a large jacket pocket, I doubt if an SL could.
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
I might agree, but the M lenses present much more of a limitation when it comes to close focusing than R or SL lenses both because of their close focus limits (.7 to 1m vs less than half that with most R lenses) and because of parallax. I'm not very sensitive to the "real feeling" provided by the viewfinder, and I use both cameras in pretty much the same way (albeit, I'm not using the howitzer class SL zoom but merely bulky R prime lenses ...).

Being unobtrusive and shooting close in to your subject is much more a matter of the photographer than the camera. Both the SL and the M-P are pretty darn quiet in operation; both can be used very unobtrusively if that's what you want to do. Heck, just yesterday I was shooting photos in a cafe with a Polaroid SX-70 (one of the least unobtrusive cameras I can imagine due to all the clattering about made by the big mirror flapping and the processing/print eject motor noise): I was amazed to discover that the people sitting less than four feet away from me, and looking right at me, had not realized that I had just made eight exposures and didn't notice the camera until I had the film door open to change the film pack and was tearing the film box apart!

I'm keeping my M-P and my SL ... and my Polaroids. ;-)

G
Are you suggesting that what makes a photographer unobtrusive isn't so much the camera, as how the photographer acts, the body language? I'm surprised that the SX-70 didn't seem to make you noticeable. Did you just whip it up to your eye, then put it down quickly, as if nothing had happened? (Isn't that how HC-B worked?)

I'm just curious about personalities and choice of camera. I wonder, has this ever been empirically investigated?
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Are you suggesting that what makes a photographer unobtrusive isn't so much the camera, as how the photographer acts, the body language? I'm surprised that the SX-70 didn't seem to make you noticeable. Did you just whip it up to your eye, then put it down quickly, as if nothing had happened? (Isn't that how HC-B worked?)

I'm just curious about personalities and choice of camera. I wonder, has this ever been empirically investigated?
Absolutely, that is exactly what I'm saying.

To be unobtrusive, I must move simply and economically. I don't wave my camera around ... I pick it up, make settings, pre-set focus, bring it to my eye, adjust the focus, make the exposure, and set it down without rush, hurry, or trying to hide it. I don't fiddle with it unnecessarily, I leave it out on the table, sitting and ready. When I walk and look for opportunities, I don't dart around and look hither and yon ... I just walk and look as I walk. I read a book when I'm sitting, and look around every few minutes. I'm ready: Not in a rush, not looking to obscure myself, just ready. The action of making a photograph is done quietly, quickly, and without fanfare. I smile at my subjects when they catch my eye, or I catch theirs. I'm a big person so I don't sneak around trying to hide behind things; I walk to where I want to be without a fuss, do what I want to do, and then retire.

I don't know how you'd "empirically investigate" it. You just do it and see what happens. Try it. I've been taking photographs on the street, in cafes, in museums, in markets this way for years. It is often the case that I made made a dozen exposures of someone, then a while later found myself near them again and started an idle conversation, and then explained that I was taking photos. They're always dumbstruck that I was two feet away and photographed them a dozen times and they never saw the camera.

I've worked with way with Minox, Leica, Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Nikon, Polaroid ... you name it, all kinds of cameras. It's the way you move, the way you act that provides unobtrusiveness, not the camera you carry.

G
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Are you suggesting that what makes a photographer unobtrusive isn't so much the camera, as how the photographer acts, the body language? I'm surprised that the SX-70 didn't seem to make you noticeable. Did you just whip it up to your eye, then put it down quickly, as if nothing had happened? (Isn't that how HC-B worked?)

I'm just curious about personalities and choice of camera. I wonder, has this ever been empirically investigated?
When I owned my M's I found myself zone focusing and shooting from the hip a lot with the wider lenses (21-35) but with my 50's and 90 I sort of took my time to compose my street or people shots using them. 90 was a perfect "across the street" lens if I were to walk downtown and wanted to be more inconspicuous.

There may be something to your theory.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Even though the original M3 had a viewfinder for 50mm, I'd guess that the rangefinders in general are more suited to wide-angle lenses, say up to 50mm. And such lenses, as you say, are quite compact. The SL is – or seems to be – a much bigger camera; an M could just fit in a large jacket pocket, I doubt if an SL could.
For me the SL doesnt feel much bigger than an M. I wouldnot feel comfortable with any of them in the pocket of a Jacket. Maybe my pockets are not deep enough ;)
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Are you suggesting that what makes a photographer unobtrusive isn't so much the camera, as how the photographer acts, the body language? I'm surprised that the SX-70 didn't seem to make you noticeable. Did you just whip it up to your eye, then put it down quickly, as if nothing had happened? (Isn't that how HC-B worked?)

I'm just curious about personalities and choice of camera. I wonder, has this ever been empirically investigated?
I dont know if there are any empirical studies, but I have my opinion as well, which is:
I believe it is MORE the photographer than the size of the camera.
But the size of the camera might influence how the photographer feels and so the size of the camera indirectly does influence the photographed People.
A friend and professional photographer of mine shoots nearly everything with his Leica S, and the style and how Images come out is a lot Reportage style with very natural results. But he is very good to make People trust him, even without many words.

I think i the Moment when the photographer THINKS about his camera could be obstrusive to People the CHANCE gets much higher that People feel that he is uncomfortable and also might feel uncomfortable.

But Overall I dont see the SL as a big Body (at least as Long as the 24-90 is not connected). It is very fast and very quiet as well.
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
Absolutely, that is exactly what I'm saying.

To be unobtrusive, I must move simply and economically. I don't wave my camera around ... I pick it up, make settings, pre-set focus, bring it to my eye, adjust the focus, make the exposure, and set it down without rush, hurry, or trying to hide it. I don't fiddle with it unnecessarily, I leave it out on the table, sitting and ready. When I walk and look for opportunities, I don't dart around and look hither and yon ... I just walk and look as I walk. I read a book when I'm sitting, and look around every few minutes. I'm ready: Not in a rush, not looking to obscure myself, just ready. The action of making a photograph is done quietly, quickly, and without fanfare. I smile at my subjects when they catch my eye, or I catch theirs. I'm a big person so I don't sneak around trying to hide behind things; I walk to where I want to be without a fuss, do what I want to do, and then retire.

I don't know how you'd "empirically investigate" it. You just do it and see what happens. Try it. I've been taking photographs on the street, in cafes, in museums, in markets this way for years. It is often the case that I made made a dozen exposures of someone, then a while later found myself near them again and started an idle conversation, and then explained that I was taking photos. They're always dumbstruck that I was two feet away and photographed them a dozen times and they never saw the camera.

I've worked with way with Minox, Leica, Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Nikon, Polaroid ... you name it, all kinds of cameras. It's the way you move, the way you act that provides unobtrusiveness, not the camera you carry.

G
I wasn't so much thinking about the way we use a camera – you are describing a sort of 'stealth' method, a 'hiding in plain view' – rather does our psychological makeup influence our choice of camera type. We like to think we are rational in our actions, such as choosing a camera; but how true is this really?
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
No one is making a compelling case for SL or the M? :rolleyes:
My belief is that the SL is clearly the more versatile camera and can replace the M plus do more with longer lenses and UWA lenses.

The he bigger question is of course if the OP wants to keep a rangefinder and if that answer is yes, the. The next question is if they can live without a M body for the next 9-12 months if they sell now at "good prices" before the next body is announced. If yes to all sell. If not keep both for now. I know what I did and that's why I'm not an M owner any longer although I loved my M9's.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I wasn't so much thinking about the way we use a camera – you are describing a sort of 'stealth' method, a 'hiding in plain view' – rather does our psychological makeup influence our choice of camera type. We like to think we are rational in our actions, such as choosing a camera; but how true is this really?
I pick a camera based on many criteria having to do with functions, ergonomics, what I want to with it, its format, etc. I don't often consider a camera as an expression of psychological makeup.

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
No one is making a compelling case for SL or the M?
Perhaps they should be seen as complementary rather than competitors.
Exactly. Why does one have to argue for one and against the other? They're different kinds of cameras, operate differently, and work best with different lenses due to size, shape, etc. They complement each other more than they compete against each other, just as Leica M and Leica R did.

The SL is more akin to an SLR camera and thus more versatile than the M with respect to its ability to frame and focus with a wider range of lens focal lengths and lens accessories. With its generously sized grip and great deal of gripping area, the SL works comfortably with larger lenses. The TTL viewing and focusing allows use of nearly any focal length lens.

The M is a bit smaller and lighter and works better with smaller and lighter lenses due to its more compact shape. Its RF viewing and focusing is limited to a range of lenses from about 28mm to about 135mm due to rangefinder accuracy and framing constraints. It can be used with other lenses and the Live View/EVF as well, but its ergonomics aren't ideal for that task.

If you can afford—and want—both, have them and use them as you see fit. If you can only afford—or want—one, pick the one that suits your use and your needs/desires for lenses best.

G
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Well, I believe both are great cameras and wouldnt want to say one is btter than the other.
I just wondered and wanted to discuss if the overlap between both , the M and SL is so great that for People who do use the SL because they sometimes want zoom or tele or fast AF, if for those people it might be easier to just use the SL for both, the SL native lenses as well as some M primes.

For sure the SL does not have the same Level of simplicity like the M. It is just not possible, because as soon as you have AF, multif Points, Video, etc etc there are just more functions and Options.
But for a camera with so many functions the SL is still relativly clean and simple to Control.
 

hasselbladfan

New member
The TTL viewing and focusing allows use of nearly any focal length lens.
G
The SL is also very welcome for "aging" M photographers. Since a couple of years, my 75 and 90 M Crons stay in the drawer since I miss the focus point more frequently now (with my aging eyes). Don't laugh. :)

With SL and the focus enlargement on the joystick, it is again piece of cake.

I love innovation.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I just wondered and wanted to discuss if the overlap between both , the M and SL is so great that for People who do use the SL because they sometimes want zoom or tele or fast AF, if for those people it might be easier to just use the SL for both, the SL native lenses as well as some M primes.
Well, I've read right through.

It seems to me that if you want/like a rangefinder then the SL is not a substitute . . . and if you don't like a rangefinder you shouldn't have an M anyway!

I'm using my SL a lot at the moment (it's a novelty, it works well, and I really like it). But soon I'm sure I'll go back to my MP and MM and get back into the more 'involved' shooting style it encourages.

Both - is what I'd say, but if I couldn't have both then I'd stick with my M cameras - I really would.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Thank you all for your answers. Even though the M lenses work very well on the SL I have decided to Keep my M-bodies. I just like using them too much and as Long as I can afford it I will enjoy the "Luxury" to have the Option.
 
Top