Leica M10 or SL?

If you only want to use standard lenses, them the M10 is the obvious choice. But if you need to reach further or have a need to tap into the ever-growing range of L-mount lenses, the SL is the obvious choice. Its all about the lenses, baby! ;)
 
I'd choose M10 for sure: Leica M is familiar and comfortable with 35 and 50mm lenses, and for me, live view would be a welcome addition versus M8/M9. It has iconic looks and just-right size.

I haven't tried Leica SL. I imagine it offers more modern lens designs, but it's also competing more directly with Sony and that's not a good place to be.
 
I've owned the M10 for a couple of years and it's a wonderful camera. I've also toyed with the idea of owning a SL since it was released.

I wouldn't give up my M10 for the SL...but for using M lenses with an EVF based camera, the SL has some appeal. I've tried most of the other mirrorless bodies with M lenses and they all fall short with some lenses, IMO. The SL seems to have the most promise since it can at least identify the lens, and it has a thinner cover glass than most (all?). However, it would be more appealing if it had IBIS, more megapixels, and a better grip. A lower price wouldn't hurt either :)
 
Ko.Fe. said:
IMO, CL is totally behind of current camera manufacturing for cropped sensor cameras. IMO, it is camera for those who need Leica label for some (but not photography related) reason.
Click to expand...

I agree somewhat...since I prefer Fuji, but the CL is certainly a nice camera that is very capable. It is just way too expensive.
 
I love my M lenses, but they could be used with the SL via an adapter by Leica. This is not an issue for me. The SL is larger and heavier than the M10. This could be an issue.
 
raid said:
If you were to get another Leica camera, and if the choice for you is to pick between a M10 or SL, which camera would you get and why? I have seen RFF friends with M10 and with SL cameras, and it seems that different users have different preferences. In my case, if I get another camera, it will be to complement my M9. I am not a fan of 28mm lenses, or I would have also considered the Q or Q2.

Thank you for your views.
Click to expand...

Hi Raid. I had the same dilemma several months ago: M10 or SL? I already had several M lenses which I had used on film Leica bodies and on the M9. In the end I went for the M10 because of its familiar small size (same footprint as the M6 classic, although a tiny bit taller) and the rangefinder style of focussing. I didn't have any R lenses and did not want to invest in another new lens format.
 
Thanks, Monz.
I am also having such thoughts.
There is no need for me to use lenses from many different lens mounts,
My Leica lenses and adapted lenses will do.

(Happy Eid)
 
Hi Raid

Whilst I still enjoy using an RF in my film M`s I`ve grown accustomed to using an EVF in my digital cameras and seeing exposure and depth of field in real time.

If I were to buy a digital Leica it would therefore have to be the SL or the CL .
The CL would possibly be more attractive for its small form factor .
 
raid said:
Thanks, Monz.
I am also having such thoughts.
There is no need for me to use lenses from many different lens mounts,
My Leica lenses and adapted lenses will do.

(Happy Eid)
Click to expand...

Happy Eid Raid.
I really like the size and handling of the M10 but I kept getting blown highlights in hight contrast situations initially. I upgraded to the latest firmware (which changed the base ISO to 200) which helped a little. Now, I underexposure slightly to keep details in bright areas and post-process. I don't recall having to do this with the M9.
 
It is the age old RF/SLR dilemma. People are going to answer it differently. You need to decide for yourself which you prefer. Others can't answer the question for you.
 
raid said:
Back to my question: pick M10 or SL ?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Raid, the whole time I have been on this site, you've been a Leica M user and not someone who changes equipment a lot. I would be curious to hear why you are considering the SL instead of another M.
 
jsrockit said:
Raid, the whole time I have been on this site, you've been a Leica M user and not someone who changes equipment a lot. I would be curious to hear why you are considering the SL instead of another M.
Click to expand...

Actually …. that`s a good point John.
I remember when I first came to this site .
It was to read Raid`s review of M lenses .
 
Or a Z7, which works well with M lenses, too. Native Z primes are superb at a fraction of any SL lens. IBIS. Properly supported flash interface.
 
I handled an SL for a bit. It was nice, but ultimately felt like a VHS cassette in my hands, especially compared to the Leica M. I wouldn't give up an optical viewfinder for an electronic one under pretty much any circumstances. The SL native lenses are absolutely huge, and adapted M lenses look a bit funny on the big blocky body.
 
M10, period.

I’m no fan of adopting lenses. If I buy an SL I would use lenses designed first for use on the SL. Adopting lenses is a royal PITA. I already have a system that utilizes bigger zooms. I own the M system because of the difference in the way it is used and the simplicity and beauty of the use of it.
 
Michael Markey said:
Hi Raid

Whilst I still enjoy using an RF in my film M`s I`ve grown accustomed to using an EVF in my digital cameras and seeing exposure and depth of field in real time.

If I were to buy a digital Leica it would therefore have to be the SL or the CL .
The CL would possibly be more attractive for its small form factor .
Click to expand...

Hi Michael,

I am still a weekly user of M8 and M9, and I am planning ahead for my next camera. I may need to use an M10 and SL for a short while to be able to decide if the SL is too large and heavy and will I miss the RF and such issues.
 
Monz said:
Happy Eid Raid.
I really like the size and handling of the M10 but I kept getting blown highlights in hight contrast situations initially. I upgraded to the latest firmware (which changed the base ISO to 200) which helped a little. Now, I underexposure slightly and to keep details in bright areas and post-process. I don't recall having to do this with the M9.
Click to expand...

I will keep this in mind. Thanks for alerting me to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom