raid
Dad Photographer
Which is a better move up from an M9:
SL + APO Summicron 50/2 SL
or
SL2 + M adapter ( and then use my M ;enses) ?
I am unable to get an SL2 with the APO Cron.
SL + APO Summicron 50/2 SL
or
SL2 + M adapter ( and then use my M ;enses) ?
I am unable to get an SL2 with the APO Cron.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
I'd go for the SL2. Obtaining that camera (at its current price) to use with my M lenses would be a great temptation had I not purchased an M10-P just days prior to the SL2's release.
I sympathize with your position, Raid. I too have bought expensive gear not because of professional need but because I wanted it. And indeed I've enjoyed using this gear and don't regret the expense.
So... I would suggest you get what you really want. The Summicron-L is apparently an exquisitely rendering lens but you may find it easier to acquire later. The SL/SL2 is not ideal with M lenses and you lose AF too. Still, I think you'd probably regret not getting the SL2 at the outset, with the feeling you'd chosen second-best.
That's how I'd think about it, I think.
I bought a Q, but it was before the Q2 was known, so I harbor no regrets. It would be different now!
So... I would suggest you get what you really want. The Summicron-L is apparently an exquisitely rendering lens but you may find it easier to acquire later. The SL/SL2 is not ideal with M lenses and you lose AF too. Still, I think you'd probably regret not getting the SL2 at the outset, with the feeling you'd chosen second-best.
That's how I'd think about it, I think.
I bought a Q, but it was before the Q2 was known, so I harbor no regrets. It would be different now!leicapixie
Well-known
Raid the camera and it's native lenses is way larger than M gear!
I am old and can no longer drag stuff like that around..
When I was a pro, with my Pentax or later Nikon kit, i was paid..
Think about these large and unnecessary lenses..
Your photography is and has always been better than about equipment..
I loved images with Pentax gear and your lovely family.
I am old and can no longer drag stuff like that around..
When I was a pro, with my Pentax or later Nikon kit, i was paid..
Think about these large and unnecessary lenses..
Your photography is and has always been better than about equipment..
I loved images with Pentax gear and your lovely family.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Rent it for a week or so and see whether or not you can handle the bulk and weight.
steveyork
Well-known
Definitely the Leicaflex SL. You're talking about those cameras, right?
Depends on the price differences, but digital bodies depreciate a lot, lenses not so much especially if you buy used , if that matters.
raid
Dad Photographer
The more I think about it all, the better it looks not to buy anything now. A low cost option is to get an SL with M adapter, and stop with this purchase. Someone at the Leica Forum posted yesterday that he bought an SL für $2000.
I am not a professional photographer. I can see the point to get AF and IS when you get paid for your photography,
I am not a professional photographer. I can see the point to get AF and IS when you get paid for your photography,
robert blu
quiet photographer
raid
Dad Photographer
Thank you Robert. I am lucky that I do not need to wear glasses or contacts yet.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
You have M8 and M9. Keep same pattern, get CL and SL.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Having owned the SL and loved it, using SL, R, and M lenses on it, and sold it all for lack of use ... if I were to buy another SL series camera I'd go with the SL2 body first and use whatever lenses M or R lenses I had on it, then buy whichever SL series lenses I wanted afterwards.
I don't care what anyone else says about what works best regarding M or R lenses. I've used the camera extensively with both. Both series lenses perform extremely well, the difference is in ergonomics primarily. The R lenses' ergonomics suit the body's layout a bit better, and M lenses constrain somewhat the use of the camera's excellent TTL focusing/viewing capabilities due to their relatively limited close focus abilities, but both of these are minor issues.
Using the SL/SL2 with M or R lenses does not support AF, or Program mode, or Shutter priority mode. Again, IMO, it's easier to focus with the SL than it is with the M—the viewfinder is that good, and you have superb focusing aids*(both peaking and magnification) that you don't have with the M. So, for me, the lack of AF is far less significant than many seem to imply: I have (always had) crappy eyes and I can prove that my focusing with the SL always outperforms my focusing ability with the M cameras by pointing to several thousands of exposures with both.
Regards weight and size, the SL is a larger, heavier camera. It's 10mm wider, and 30mm taller to the top of the EVF hump, compared to the M. The body measured in absolutes is deeper too, due to the protusion of the viewfinder ocular and the built-in grip, but where you grip it is actually about the same depth other than the grip itself. The largest difference is that it's about a half to 3/4 pound heavier, kind of the typical difference between any M and a professional grade SLR body (like a Nikon F4 or Canon F-1 whatever) historically. The additional of lens weight depends on what lens you use, of course, and many M lenses are both small physically and light in consequence. Summary: If you like how a pro-grade SLR or DSLR feels, the SL fits your hands the same way.
Should you spend the money for one? This is the key question, of course, and only you can make answer to that. What are you looking for? Why is such a purchase of interest to you, personally?
I loved the SL and, when I bought it, its capabilities and advantages over any other digital camera I had used were an immediate win for my photography. As time went on, and I retired, and I closed down my still existing but small photo business, I found myself not using it other than for specific niche capabilities in macro, tabletop, and long lens work that the M is simply unsuited for. I decided that such an expensive collection of equipment as an SL body and a pair of superb SL zooms that I had was foolish to hold onto if I wasn't going to use them a lot and sold them off. I bought a CL body to use with my R lenses for those niche capabilities ... the smaller format and lighter/smaller body were actually a plus for them over using the SL in some ways. Over time, I've found that the CL does what I want for such a large portion of my photography such that I hardly used the M-D at all any more, and I sold the M-D262 as well.
There is a still extant bit of my photography that could benefit from a larger format camera and after much rumination and consideration, I decided that I needed a larger format to really address it the way I want to. And by larger, I mean larger than the difference between APS-C and FF. Since I already have a complete Hasselblad 500CM film camera kit, the sensible thing for me to do was to extend that with Hasselblad medium format digital equipment rather than buy back into FF format digital gear. It's a personal choice, both objective and emotional, but I simply prefer the Hasselblad "box with a lens on the end" form factor over the hand-held 35mm SLR or RF form factor for that work. I look forward to when the 907x Special Edition I ordered arrives.. And I've taken the 500CM out of its long storage and been shooting with it, have revisited how much I love it. It's the right thing for me to do.
You have to come to grips with what you want, and what's going to do your photography the most good. Sometimes, buying nothing is the biggest plus, putting your energy into seeing, traveling, and thinking of photographs rather than what equipment is best. And sometimes, getting that special camera that inspires you to see differently is the right thing.
Good luck!
G
—
"No matter where you go, there you are."
Hasselblad 500CM + Distagon 50mm f/4 T*
I don't care what anyone else says about what works best regarding M or R lenses. I've used the camera extensively with both. Both series lenses perform extremely well, the difference is in ergonomics primarily. The R lenses' ergonomics suit the body's layout a bit better, and M lenses constrain somewhat the use of the camera's excellent TTL focusing/viewing capabilities due to their relatively limited close focus abilities, but both of these are minor issues.
Using the SL/SL2 with M or R lenses does not support AF, or Program mode, or Shutter priority mode. Again, IMO, it's easier to focus with the SL than it is with the M—the viewfinder is that good, and you have superb focusing aids*(both peaking and magnification) that you don't have with the M. So, for me, the lack of AF is far less significant than many seem to imply: I have (always had) crappy eyes and I can prove that my focusing with the SL always outperforms my focusing ability with the M cameras by pointing to several thousands of exposures with both.
Regards weight and size, the SL is a larger, heavier camera. It's 10mm wider, and 30mm taller to the top of the EVF hump, compared to the M. The body measured in absolutes is deeper too, due to the protusion of the viewfinder ocular and the built-in grip, but where you grip it is actually about the same depth other than the grip itself. The largest difference is that it's about a half to 3/4 pound heavier, kind of the typical difference between any M and a professional grade SLR body (like a Nikon F4 or Canon F-1 whatever) historically. The additional of lens weight depends on what lens you use, of course, and many M lenses are both small physically and light in consequence. Summary: If you like how a pro-grade SLR or DSLR feels, the SL fits your hands the same way.
Should you spend the money for one? This is the key question, of course, and only you can make answer to that. What are you looking for? Why is such a purchase of interest to you, personally?
I loved the SL and, when I bought it, its capabilities and advantages over any other digital camera I had used were an immediate win for my photography. As time went on, and I retired, and I closed down my still existing but small photo business, I found myself not using it other than for specific niche capabilities in macro, tabletop, and long lens work that the M is simply unsuited for. I decided that such an expensive collection of equipment as an SL body and a pair of superb SL zooms that I had was foolish to hold onto if I wasn't going to use them a lot and sold them off. I bought a CL body to use with my R lenses for those niche capabilities ... the smaller format and lighter/smaller body were actually a plus for them over using the SL in some ways. Over time, I've found that the CL does what I want for such a large portion of my photography such that I hardly used the M-D at all any more, and I sold the M-D262 as well.
There is a still extant bit of my photography that could benefit from a larger format camera and after much rumination and consideration, I decided that I needed a larger format to really address it the way I want to. And by larger, I mean larger than the difference between APS-C and FF. Since I already have a complete Hasselblad 500CM film camera kit, the sensible thing for me to do was to extend that with Hasselblad medium format digital equipment rather than buy back into FF format digital gear. It's a personal choice, both objective and emotional, but I simply prefer the Hasselblad "box with a lens on the end" form factor over the hand-held 35mm SLR or RF form factor for that work. I look forward to when the 907x Special Edition I ordered arrives.. And I've taken the 500CM out of its long storage and been shooting with it, have revisited how much I love it. It's the right thing for me to do.
You have to come to grips with what you want, and what's going to do your photography the most good. Sometimes, buying nothing is the biggest plus, putting your energy into seeing, traveling, and thinking of photographs rather than what equipment is best. And sometimes, getting that special camera that inspires you to see differently is the right thing.
Good luck!
G
—
"No matter where you go, there you are."
Hasselblad 500CM + Distagon 50mm f/4 T*
raid
Dad Photographer
Thank you Godfrey.
It is a good time for reflection on what I want.
It is a good time for reflection on what I want.
I would go for this. It is a sufficient upgrade to the M9 and you'll have a native lens to use with your body. You don't appear to be the high res type, and 24mp is still a small upgrade. I do like your decision to maybe do nothing a bit more though. For M lenses, I still think it is best to stick to an M body.
raid
Dad Photographer
Switching over to using SL lenses (only) would remove the enjoyment of using the older M or LTM lenses. The size of the SL or SL2 camera is a problem too. It is not an optimal solution to just leave the M cameras and use SL or similar.
For extra details I can use my Rolleiflex TLR or the SWC.
raid
Dad Photographer
Having owned the SL and loved it, using SL, R, and M lenses on it, and sold it all for lack of use ... if I were to buy another SL series camera I'd go with the SL2 body first and use whatever lenses M or R lenses I had on it, then buy whichever SL series lenses I wanted afterwards.
I don't care what anyone else says about what works best regarding M or R lenses. I've used the camera extensively with both. Both series lenses perform extremely well, the difference is in ergonomics primarily. The R lenses' ergonomics suit the body's layout a bit better, and M lenses constrain somewhat the use of the camera's excellent TTL focusing/viewing capabilities due to their relatively limited close focus abilities, but both of these are minor issues.
Using the SL/SL2 with M or R lenses does not support AF, or Program mode, or Shutter priority mode. Again, IMO, it's easier to focus with the SL than it is with the M—the viewfinder is that good, and you have superb focusing aids*(both peaking and magnification) that you don't have with the M. So, for me, the lack of AF is far less significant than many seem to imply: I have (always had) crappy eyes and I can prove that my focusing with the SL always outperforms my focusing ability with the M cameras by pointing to several thousands of exposures with both.
Regards weight and size, the SL is a larger, heavier camera. It's 10mm wider, and 30mm taller to the top of the EVF hump, compared to the M. The body measured in absolutes is deeper too, due to the protusion of the viewfinder ocular and the built-in grip, but where you grip it is actually about the same depth other than the grip itself. The largest difference is that it's about a half to 3/4 pound heavier, kind of the typical difference between any M and a professional grade SLR body (like a Nikon F4 or Canon F-1 whatever) historically. The additional of lens weight depends on what lens you use, of course, and many M lenses are both small physically and light in consequence. Summary: If you like how a pro-grade SLR or DSLR feels, the SL fits your hands the same way.
Should you spend the money for one? This is the key question, of course, and only you can make answer to that. What are you looking for? Why is such a purchase of interest to you, personally?
I loved the SL and, when I bought it, its capabilities and advantages over any other digital camera I had used were an immediate win for my photography. As time went on, and I retired, and I closed down my still existing but small photo business, I found myself not using it other than for specific niche capabilities in macro, tabletop, and long lens work that the M is simply unsuited for. I decided that such an expensive collection of equipment as an SL body and a pair of superb SL zooms that I had was foolish to hold onto if I wasn't going to use them a lot and sold them off. I bought a CL body to use with my R lenses for those niche capabilities ... the smaller format and lighter/smaller body were actually a plus for them over using the SL in some ways. Over time, I've found that the CL does what I want for such a large portion of my photography such that I hardly used the M-D at all any more, and I sold the M-D262 as well.
There is a still extant bit of my photography that could benefit from a larger format camera and after much rumination and consideration, I decided that I needed a larger format to really address it the way I want to. And by larger, I mean larger than the difference between APS-C and FF. Since I already have a complete Hasselblad 500CM film camera kit, the sensible thing for me to do was to extend that with Hasselblad medium format digital equipment rather than buy back into FF format digital gear. It's a personal choice, both objective and emotional, but I simply prefer the Hasselblad "box with a lens on the end" form factor over the hand-held 35mm SLR or RF form factor for that work. I look forward to when the 907x Special Edition I ordered arrives.. And I've taken the 500CM out of its long storage and been shooting with it, have revisited how much I love it. It's the right thing for me to do.
You have to come to grips with what you want, and what's going to do your photography the most good. Sometimes, buying nothing is the biggest plus, putting your energy into seeing, traveling, and thinking of photographs rather than what equipment is best. And sometimes, getting that special camera that inspires you to see differently is the right thing.
Good luck!
G
—
"No matter where you go, there you are."
Hasselblad 500CM + Distagon 50mm f/4 T*
Thanks for sharing your experience with your own cameras, such as the SL. Since the M9's sensor issues have been resolved (it seems), there is no rush to get a new model camera with high MP. I take mainly photos of static objects at daylight, so the M9 is still doing well in such an environment.
I will try to avoid GAS this year, and maybe during the spring I will know better what I want to do regarding getting a camera or lens or any other items.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I hope you are going to make it, Raid. Something like 33 days left to hold this year GAS.
raid
Dad Photographer
Asking the question can help get some issues clarified.
Maybe the SL system is not meant for me now.
Maybe the SL system is not meant for me now.
Of course sir. I wasn't being combative in any way. That is what the forum is for. What made you decide against the M240 (or something similar)?