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
Now I own both bodies and I am a long time M user.
Before I have allways said best thing to use M lenses is the M body.
But I am not sure any more.
I think 35mm and 50mm is great on the M, but for wide angle and for lenses 75mm and longer the EVF of the SL has advantages for framing and in case of 90/135mm also for focusing.
Another advantage is the better exposure metering of the SL.

It is the first time I wonder if I should not just use the SL for both my M lenses and the SL-Zoom and get rid of the M.

One thing I might miss sometimes seeing around the frame in the viewfinder. And the rangefinder has the advantage to see the whole frame during focusing (and not just the magnified area).
In regards of IQ its a wash for me, both do fine for me.
 
Last edited:

D&A

Well-known member
Tom, I'm sure there are a zIllion pros and cons of which many will espouse on, but just let me say if and when Leica releases a M type body with say a hybrid rangefinder (OVF/EVF) or possibly an adjunct model that has a similar EVF to that of the SL, might yous quickly find yourself back to a M type body? Of course probabaly no possible use of a SL 24-90 unless that syatem comes up with AF lenses of its own, which that aspect I truly doubt. I believe that was one of the many intents of the SL among others. Just some food for thought.

Dave (D&A)
 

JorisV

New member
You might want to wait till the new M gets released, probably around Photokina I would guess...

That being said, I believe over time a lot of people will replace their M with the SL, certainly as in your case they also have the S, it is too expensive to keep M, S and SL...

For the future the M262 is also an interesting option, once that gets released with the sensor of the SL and Q...
 

D&A

Well-known member
You might want to wait till the new M gets released, probably around Photokina I would guess...

That being said, I believe over time a lot of people will replace their M with the SL, certainly as in your case they also have the S, it is too expensive to keep M, S and SL...

For the future the M262 is also an interesting option, once that gets released with the sensor of the SL and Q...
An M262 with Q/SL sensor and similar similar output...now that I find tempting.

Dave (D&A)
 

JorisV

New member
An M262 with Q/SL sensor and similar similar output...now that I find tempting.

Dave (D&A)
I am pretty sure that a M262 with the sensor of the Q would have been a huge hit, but it would also have taken away part of the appeal of the SL and the successor of the M240...
 

D&A

Well-known member
I am pretty sure that a M262 with the sensor of the Q would have been a huge hit, but it would also have taken away part of the appeal of the SL and the successor of the M240...
I may have been misunderstood. What I was implying was that the M262 with sensor and output of Q/SL, would be one of a number of new features of the M240 successor, not that they would have released the actual current M262 with amything but the current M240 sensor. Additionally I believe the new shutter in the M262 is the developmwnt of the shutter for the new M to be released later this year. I think it was included in the M262 as an enticement for that camera and a harbinger of thIngs to come.

Dave (D&A)
 

D&A

Well-known member
Not a problem with the sensor per se, but as you know opinons vary greatly as to its output (color wise) compared to others. Obviously its been discussed endlessly with everyone having their prederence for one or another.

Dave (D&A)
 

baudolino

Active member
For me, not now. I'll give it another thought once the S lens adapter becomes available.
Will very likely sell my M-P240 soon and use the S007, M246 and RX1r2.
Those cameras more than cover all situations, desires and whims for me.
I am more preoccupied with where to travel for taking pictures this year,
with the World apparently crumbling down all around us in Europe.
Pity the SL doesn't use the same batteries as the S; would make it easier to
use as travel back-up for an S owner.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
I looked long and hard at the SL but decided against it.

I'm hoping to see a new M body this year with better processor and accessory EVF in which case Ill stick with the M series. I simply can't see any advantage in using my M lenses on a larger and heavier body. I'm also not convinced about wide and ultra-wide performance on the SL, and, not forgetting, there's also the matter of having a choice between OVF and EVF on the same body.

If Leica had released the SL with a good range of compact AF prime lenses then I could have been interested, but they didn't and I'm not.
 

aDam007

New member
Do you love rangefinder focusing or not? If you don't, sell the M240. If you do, keep it.

I don't see the SL as a replacement for the M. It can be to many people, but the main reason I like the M is because it's a rangefinder. Everything else (although amazingly important) is secondary. Having fun should be most important... And rangefinders are still the most fun for me.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I do like rangefinder focusing for 35 and 50mm lenses for sure.
But its also not too bad to use theose lenses on the SL.
The advantages using M lenses on the SL I see:
-better exposure metering (I use the M only in classic mode because otherwise there is a bad exposre lag)
-when shooting manual I can see the exposure time in the viewfinder - not so when using the M
-framing with longer focal lenses
-just one body/user interface for using Zooms/AF and also for the manual M lenses

Probably I am not brave enough to sell my M anyways :loco:
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... I don't see the SL as a replacement for the M. It can be to many people, but the main reason I like the M is because it's a rangefinder. ...
Yes. M Leicas have always been an adjunct to another camera for me, usually a Nikon SLR. I want one for when I want a smaller, lighter, different kind of camera. I mostly use mine with 35, 75, and 50mm lenses now.

I prefer using R lenses on the SL because they fit it well and balance better in the hand than the small M lenses.

G
 

fotoism

Member
......35mm and 50mm is great on the M, but for wide angle and for lenses 75mm and longer the EVF of the SL has advantages for framing and in case of 90/135mm also for focusing.
Another advantage is the better exposure metering of the SL.......
Well, you answered your own question. If I were you, I'll keep the M for 35 or 50, and longer lenses on the SL. One compliments the other. Two bodies, two sets of lenses for different situations.

I wish I had your kind of problem....:grin:
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Well, you answered your own question. If I were you, I'll keep the M for 35 or 50, and longer lenses on the SL. One compliments the other. Two bodies, two sets of lenses for different situations.

I wish I had your kind of problem....:grin:
yes, I hope the discussion might also be interesting for people trying to decide between M and SL
 

Amin

Active member
And the rangefinder has the advantage to see the whole frame during focusing (and not just the magnified area).
For I long time now, I've been waiting for them to give us the option to just toggle magnification in the the center box in our EVFs. That would be perfect.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Just shot a little side by side with the M and SL and have to say I find the SL handles really extremly well with M lenses. The firmware change to have magnification on the joystick is a big step forward.
If the could introduce something like mentioned before-just a small windows with magnification while showing the reast of the image in full size would make it near perfect.
I have been a long time sceptical about EVF but the SL might change this.

After sleeping over it I dont think I will sell the M at the moment, but I might in the future. I really didnt expect the SL to handle so well with M lenses.

By the way when converting in LR the profiles for the M and SL seem a little different, if you want to get the SL images look closer to the M one needs to add some saturation and a little contrast. Seems the SL has a little more DR (just a feeling).
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Just shot a little side by side with the M and SL and have to say I find the SL handles really extremly well with M lenses. The firmware change to have magnification on the joystick is a big step forward.
If the could introduce something like mentioned before-just a small windows with magnification while showing the reast of the image in full size would make it near perfect.
I have been a long time sceptical about EVF but the SL might change this.

After sleeping over it I dont think I will sell the M at the moment, but I might in the future. I really didnt expect the SL to handle so well with M lenses.

By the way when converting in LR the profiles for the M and SL seem a little different, if you want to get the SL images look closer to the M one needs to add some saturation and a little contrast. Seems the SL has a little more DR (just a feeling).
Just a thought. It may be easier to sell your M before he new one is announced if you suspect that the "M11" will get all kinds of new features to take the M in places people never thought it would go.
 

Robert Campbell

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.
 
Top