Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 41 of 41

Thread: replace M body with SL? opinions?

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    replace M body with SL? opinions?

    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 by Paratom; 16th January 2016 at 15:41.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    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)

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    ovf!
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    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...

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by JorisV View Post
    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)
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    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...

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by JorisV View Post
    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)

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    I dont see any problem with the current M sensor.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    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)

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Czech Republic and Austria
    Posts
    305
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    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.

  11. #11
    Senior Member KeithL's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    832
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    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.
    http://www.keithlaban.co.uk
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    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.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    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
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by aDam007 View Post
    ... 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

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    ......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....
    Phil
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotoism View Post
    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....
    yes, I hope the discussion might also be interesting for people trying to decide between M and SL

  17. #17
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    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.
    -Amin Sabet
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    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).
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,181
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    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.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  20. #20
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    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.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    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.

  22. #22
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    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

  23. #23
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    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.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  24. #24
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    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?
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  25. #25
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    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
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  26. #26
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,181
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    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.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    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

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    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.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #29
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    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?
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  30. #30
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    No one is making a compelling case for SL or the M?

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,280
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    No one is making a compelling case for SL or the M?
    It's just not a question that keeps me awake at night. I have both.

    scott
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  32. #32
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    No one is making a compelling case for SL or the M?
    Perhaps they should be seen as complementary rather than competitors.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,181
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    No one is making a compelling case for SL or the M?
    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.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #34
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    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

  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    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
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  36. #36
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Exactly. Why does one have to argue for one and against the other?
    That was the post about. Trying to evoke a conversation like Seinfeld.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  37. #37
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    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.

  38. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    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.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #39
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    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.

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  40. #40
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    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.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  41. #41
    New Member LocalHero1953's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Cambridge
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: replace M body with SL? opinions?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    ..........Both - is what I'd say, but if I couldn't have both then I'd stick with my M cameras - I really would.
    I agree - though I'd rather not have to make the choice.

    The next M will have a L mount anyway, as Leica simplifies and modernises its systems. The M body will thus achieve the ideal of a thinner body, the option of AF lenses, a weatherproof mount, and, through a new advanced M-L adapter with a RF cam follower, it will continue to accept M lenses




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •