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

[jsrockit]

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.

It's not bad at all... it's better to be happy when photographing.

 

[raid]

In the end, I bought an M10. No regrets. I use mainly a 75/1.4 with it.

 

[Godfrey]

A year on ...

I remain quite happy with the CL. My Ms are gone, my SL before it. The CL suits me for my daily walk around .. that and the little Panasonic GX9 I got recently and on which I use my teensy Olympus Body Cap Lenses (15mm f/8, 9mm f/8 Fisheye) most of the time. The GX9 suits my bicycling nicely, the CL is my usual pick for more serious hand held work.

Of course, I also acquired the Hasselblad 907x that I ordered in Summer 2019 this past March. On a level of absolute capability, it goes past any digital camera I've had before, and it is also a peach to shoot with (like all my Hasselblads have been). But it is largish and heavy-ish for casual walking about: I tend to use it in a more deliberate frame of mind.

If I had to unwind back to 2015 and do it all over again, with the lenses now available, I'd buy an SL2, a couple of new lenses, adapt my R lens kit to it, sell off all the M gear, keep the GX9, and stick with the Hasselblads as I have now. I'd always keep my Polaroids... 😀

G

 

[Rayt]

I had a lot of vintage SLR lenses including R, Contax C/Y, Konica, Contarex, Nikon and wanted to continue using them so a mirrorless like the SL2 with the superior EVF was a good idea. A good idea in theory at least. Rather than a photographer I became a lens tester with all these adapters and shots of mundane stuff to A/B test. Meanwhile for actual shooting I reach for an M9. So after some meditation I realized I was looking back too much in the past and it was burdening my current and future gear decisions. I only lost a little money trading the SL2, got rid of most of the legacy lenses save a few good ones like the Konica 58/1.2, and top ROM R lenses and got an M10M like I should have done in the beginning. The 020 Viso is not crap. It isn’t an SL2 but works great as intended.

 

[Calzone]

I had a lot of vintage SLR lenses including R, Contax C/Y, Konica, Contarex, Nikon and wanted to continue using them so a mirrorless like the SL2 with the superior EVF was a good idea. A good idea in theory at least. Rather than a photographer I became a lens tester with all these adapters and shots of mundane stuff to A/B test. Meanwhile for actual shooting I reach for an M9. So after some meditation I realized I was looking back too much in the past and it was burdening my current and future gear decisions. I only lost a little money trading the SL2, got rid of most of the legacy lenses save a few good ones like the Konica 58/1.2, and top ROM R lenses and got an M10M like I should have done in the beginning. The 020 Viso is not crap. It isn’t an SL2 but works great as intended.

Ray,

I see your points.

For me the biggest reason to go with a SL2 is for exploiting the native AF glass. Of course this is expensive and has the weight and bulk penalty.

I have no remorse because I see the SL2 and the native glass as being future proofed and the inages and I.Q. are outstanding.

I get what you say: nothing like a "M."

I own lots of legacy glass, but I very infrequently use it on the SL2. The native glass is that good.

Cal

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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..

It must be well hidden universe. I simply can't see the reason to buy another slr with evf body just because it is Leica Camera AG. Leica lens is big excuse, but I can't find any evidence it has something really valuable over lenses for Sony.
M10 has no alternatives. SL is just one from many.

 

[Michael Markey]

Like Godfrey I`m happy with my CL and its native lenses .
I also use my M lenses on it.

Can`t justify an SL but if I was spending M10 money that`s what I`d get .
Size and versatility and I can use my M lenses on the SL too.
I prefer focus peaking to an RF especially with fast lenses.
The 24 -90 would probably do me for most of what I shoot .
Lack of flippy screen wouldn`t bother me .
My Sony has one and I`ve never used it .

 

[Godfrey]

Old thread. Five years on... speaking of just the Leica equipment:
The CL is long gone. An M10-R and an M10 Monochrom are in its place.
In film bodies, the M4-2 has been supplemented with an M6TTL 0.85x and a IIIc.
A dozen or so various lenses in M and R mount, and various accessories, complement this assemblage.

Beyond Leicas, a motley assortment of other film and digital cameras fill the shelves.

And the Polaroids continue to make their unique instant prints. 🙂

G
—
Equipment is transitory; photographs endure.

 

[Michael Markey]

Still have my CL and its still my daily .
I started to use it with my M glass and I sold all the the Cl lenses 18/ 23/35/60/55135
I`ve just bought them all back again apart from the 18.

I`ve had an SL2s for a number of years ... its a lovely camera but heavy and the AF isn`t fast enough for what I intended to use it for so its not exactly a "go to" for me although it does get used.

I bought the 24/70 and the 90/280.
The 90/280 is heavy which limits its use

So its the 246 and the CL which get the use.
The CL now with its native lenses or the full frame SL 24/70 .