Why did you get an SL ? Why not an M10?

raid

Dad Photographer
Local time
6:18 AM
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
36,147
I want to collect your thoughts on why the SL was a better choice for you than an M10. :confused:

More specifically, if you mainly use Leica M lenses and if you don't often use flash or macro, is the SL still somehow a better choice than an M10? Why? Why not?

I know that Cal has an SL! He loves the SL.
 
deciding between the M and SL all depends on the style of shooting that you like.

if you want to shoot manual-focus with a rangefinder, then really the Leica M is your only option.

I find the style of the SL is very modern, with a through the lens view, EVF and AF capability with the native L lenses.
You can also use it for manual focus but it will be slower than with a RF, however it can also be more accurate with zoom/magnifier.

I personally prefer the RF experience for every day capture, but for slow and methodical shooting then that's where I would go SL or even Sony A7 series for that matter.
 
I got an SL when I sent in my second M9 for sensor replacement. It was going to cost $1500(+/-) to repair it, or upgrade to the SL for $3k.

I haven't owned an SLR since high school, so I was very apprehensive. After about a month, I really came to love the SL. It is big and heavy, but the images are fantastic. I think it has the same sensor as the M10, but I'm not sure.

The biggest advantage for me has been the ability to use practically any lens on it with adapters. I am very far-sighted, so looking at the screen on the back of an M10 is not an option. Focusing through the viewfinder on the SL is easy, and there is a built-in diopter.

I wouldn't hesitate to suggest buying one!
 
Thanks for your input, Bob. I have an M9 with the new sensor, so I would still have a RF camera if I decided to get an SL. The VF is awesome on the SL. If I got an M10, I may slowly but surely not like using the M8 or M9 after a while.
 
I always wonder..
Why anyone these days..
Would want a reg slr camera w/o a flippy screen..
M10 not included..
Sure the SL is nice with Leica lenses..
But once you have a fully articulated screen..
And have the ability to do any any camera angle including vertical shots..
The SL is a no go for me..
 
I know that Cal has an SL! He loves the SL.

Raid,

I'll give you the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The good: weather sealed; battery capacity is good for not needing a spare; easy to dumb down the camera, disable features, make custom menues and favorites (basically you can configure the camera and make it your way); selectable metering (I use spot metering and single point focus, unlike a rangefinder the focus point and spot metering is movable via the joystick; autofocus; remarkable in lens image stabilization on 24-90 and longer Leica zooms; APO Crons ( the native glass for the SL is really remarkable in rendering, resolution, and is highly corrected). Also the VF'er is really remarkable. Really good because it gives you night vision, unlike an optical VF'er light gets amplified under dim conditions.



The bad and ugly: native lenses are both supersized and mucho heavy. I say with every Linhof sold comes a free gym membership, and pretty much the same can be said for a SL using native glass. My SL with 50 Lux, knicknamed "the Monster" weighs 5 1/2 pounds. When I carry my APO 35 Cron and 50 Lux in a bag with my SL it weighs 12 pounds. The turn on is rather slow and not like my CL. The CL I can turn on and it is ready to shoot by the time I lift the camera to my eye. Also I had to wait about 2 years before the 50 Lux became available, the APO 35 Cron I own is still in short supply with waiting lists even though it has been out for a while, and now expected 25% tariffs that are rumored to begin November 1st.

Know that I still shoot film and have 4 M film bodies and I still love my seven year old Monochrom.

Inadvertently/somehow I became a Fashion Photographer because of my gal's blog. She has close to 800K followers and has become a celeb. Check out www.AccidentalIcon.com. I never post my work, but you can see the results on "Maggie's" blog. Also know because I'm a lazy slacker that pretty much the images are right out of the camera without post.

Helpful to know that the native SL glass is "Future Proof" to perhaps a 100MP sensor. I have been informed that the lens on the Leica "Q" is Future Proof to 80 MP.

When you read the Jono Slack reviews of the APO Crons for the SL you will understand why the native glass is a big deal. He compares APO M-lenses to APO L lenses. Guess who wins.

If you PM me your e-mail I'll send you some JPEG's of some unprocessed images I took with the APO 35 Cron. The APO provides this contrast enhancement to the in focus parts of the image that provides a perceived increased sharpness. I'll be sending JPEGS shot at F2.0 that have this pop to them.

Cal
 
I don't own one because they're too big/heavy for casual photography, but over the past few years nearly every on set photographer has switched from Canon to Sony or the Leica SL.

The big pro is that it makes it practical to use Leica in a professional setting again.
 
I want to collect your thoughts on why the SL was a better choice for you than an M10. :confused:

When I bought the SL, the M10 didn't exist yet. I had an M-P typ 240 at the time.

For the work I intended to do with it, the SL was a better camera. I had both the 24-90 and 90-270 mm zoom lenses, and used those along with a collection of different R series lenses with it too. For a couple of years, I carried the SL all the time and made many thousands of excellent photos with it.

The AF was excellent, the fast, responsive operation (including AF) was outstanding. I love its controls and configurability. The viewfinder remains state of the art. Using the SL was fast, fluid, smooth, and simple.

Yes, the native lenses are large and heavy. The body isn't that big and heavy ... it's about the size of my Leicaflex SL ... so using it with R lenses is very natural and feels a lot like using the Leicaflex SL. It worked great with all my lenses, including the Leica M-mount lenses, but was ergonomically far nicer with the R lenses.

After I retired and bought the M-D, I found myself using it less and less because my photography changed. I found myself using the M-D with just a 35 and 50 lens most of the time and not needing the extra performance and configurability of the SL. After it sat for about a year and a half with very little use, I decided that the SL and its native lenses were just too expensive a collection of equipment to have sitting if I wasn't going to use them so I sold them.

(I bought the CL to replace the SL for macro, tabletop, and long lens use. I've since found that I used the CL for everything, it just suits me well, so I sold the M-D. This is how equipment goes with me... :))

G
 
I think it's largely about how you like to view the subject. Check Reid Reviews for some good tests and commentary.
 
When I bought the SL, the M10 didn't exist yet. I had an M-P typ 240 at the time.

For the work I intended to do with it, the SL was a better camera. I had both the 24-90 and 90-270 mm zoom lenses, and used those along with a collection of different R series lenses with it too. For a couple of years, I carried the SL all the time and made many thousands of excellent photos with it.

The AF was excellent, the fast, responsive operation (including AF) was outstanding. I love its controls and configurability. The viewfinder remains state of the art. Using the SL was fast, fluid, smooth, and simple.

Yes, the native lenses are large and heavy. The body isn't that big and heavy ... it's about the size of my Leicaflex SL ... so using it with R lenses is very natural and feels a lot like using the Leicaflex SL. It worked great with all my lenses, including the Leica M-mount lenses, but was ergonomically far nicer with the R lenses.

After I retired and bought the M-D, I found myself using it less and less because my photography changed. I found myself using the M-D with just a 35 and 50 lens most of the time and not needing the extra performance and configurability of the SL. After it sat for about a year and a half with very little use, I decided that the SL and its native lenses were just too expensive a collection of equipment to have sitting if I wasn't going to use them so I sold them.

(I bought the CL to replace the SL for macro, tabletop, and long lens use. I've since found that I used the CL for everything, it just suits me well, so I sold the M-D. This is how equipment goes with me... :))

G



I have a feeling that if I went with an SL that after a short time I will not be using it for a casual stroll with a camera, which is what I mostly do. I left behind using SLR cameras for RF cameras to get a feeling of pure photography. At the same time, life is short, and if we want to try something out, maybe we should go with that feeling.
 
Let's discuss current market value for used cameras.
1. Leica M10: $5000-$5500
2. Leica SL: $3500-$4000
3. Fuji X-H1: what is market value? $1100? (not full frame)

Regarding the SL, i saw this comment: It is now possible to pick up a used SL body for around £2,500 from an authorised dealer, complete with dealer warranty. Private sellers will be lucky to get £2,000.
 
Let's discuss current market value for used cameras.
1. Leica M10: $5000-$5500
2. Leica SL: $3500-$4000
3. Fuji X-H1: what is market value?

Regarding the SL, i saw this comment: It is now possible to pick up a used SL body for around £2,500 from an authorised dealer, complete with dealer warranty. Private sellers will be lucky to get £2,000.

Raid,

The Leica lens adapters are not inexpensive. If lens profiles are important to you you have to use the Leica adapters.

Know that Leica for a while held a promotion that included a "free" M-adapter with the purchase of a CL.

Also know how I have my camera set up that basically I use it very much like a rangefinder in practice, except the single focus point is also a spot meter that is movable via the joystick.

With manual focus lenses depressing the joystick magnifies the image. half depressing the shutter goes back to full frame.

Cal
 
An adapter costs around $500 from stores like B&H. I would get one for sure. When it comes to other systems, I may not go for Leica adapters but look for some off-brand adapters.
 
An adapter costs around $500 from stores like B&H. I would get one for sure. When it comes to other systems, I may not go for Leica adapters but look for some off-brand adapters.

Raid,

I use a Novaflex F-mount to M-mount and stack it on top of the Leica M-mount to T-mount adapter.

Somehow this allows me to use the F1.2 Noctilux profile with my Noct-Nikkor. If the adapter that first interfaces with the SL body is not Leica no acess to profiles exists.

Alternately for "R" glass I stack the R to M adaper, and the camera recognizes the lens and the R lens menu comes up.

Aftermarket adapters have no access to the Leica profiles.

Cal
 
Raid, have you considered the Sony A7 series?
The original Sony A7 goes for less than 800$ now a days, full frame. It would be a good inexpensive entry point before committing to the SL.
My favorite thing on the SL when I got to try it is the EVF, probably the nicest one I got to experience back then compared to the X-T2 and A7Riii
 
Hi taemo,

I have not yet tried using a SONY camera, but I doubt it that I will get a SONY A7 simply because it may not excite me to use such a camera. I know that this sounds "bad", but I want to stay with a Leica camera. I have seen wonderful looking images from the SONY! It certainly saves some money.
 
I have both. And love both. I got a good used SL because the EVF for the M10 sucks. Now I use it for my 75 and 21 mm lenses. Sometimes with a 180 R.
Thinking about getting a 100-400 and 105 mm Macro. Perhaps a 50 Apo Summicron as well (if I sell some stuff).
Overall I’m Very happy with the combo of both cameras.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top