I'm struggling to make a decision to change my M10 for the SL2 or 2s. I would be using my M lenses primarily but would hope to buy the L fit Sigma 40mm 1.4 Art as an af lens. I have no interest in video and the only reason I want to change from the M10 is that I'm getting older and even with the +2 diopter and the Visoflex it's becoming a bit of a strain to focus. I have the 50mm Summilux ASPH, Zeiss 50 1.5 Sonnar and Zeiss 25 2.8 Biogon, also a Voigtlander 35mm 1.2 II ASPH. My worry is that the SL cameras will not give me the same files as my M10. Will I notice a difference? Thank you.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
SL2 v SL2s v M10
- Thread starter chiquita
- Start date
By "same files", are you considering, color, sharpness, shadow recovery? or something different.
No doubt the shadow recovery between the SL2 and SL2s is considerably different, with the SL2s taking at least a 1.5 stop advantage, which also be the same over the M10.
Color, IMO that's very dependent on the file type you shot, jpg, or raw and if the later, which raw converter you use.
Sharpness, details, etc. the M lenses on the SL2 or SL2s should still produce very good results. I do not have any so I can't report directly on any results, just on what I have read from others. The SL lenses are amazing, both in quality and unfortunately price.
Paul
No doubt the shadow recovery between the SL2 and SL2s is considerably different, with the SL2s taking at least a 1.5 stop advantage, which also be the same over the M10.
Color, IMO that's very dependent on the file type you shot, jpg, or raw and if the later, which raw converter you use.
Sharpness, details, etc. the M lenses on the SL2 or SL2s should still produce very good results. I do not have any so I can't report directly on any results, just on what I have read from others. The SL lenses are amazing, both in quality and unfortunately price.
Paul
https://www.flickr.com/photos/christilou1/albums/72157696582042195.
Thanks Paul, above is a link to my Venice pictures. Most (but not all ) are the M10 + 50mm Summilux ASPH combo. I love this output and worry that changing to the higher pixel SL2 might change it in some way. Is there anyone who has used both found any really discernible difference in that elusive "Leica" magic is really what I'm asking!
Thanks Paul, above is a link to my Venice pictures. Most (but not all ) are the M10 + 50mm Summilux ASPH combo. I love this output and worry that changing to the higher pixel SL2 might change it in some way. Is there anyone who has used both found any really discernible difference in that elusive "Leica" magic is really what I'm asking!
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
I have used all three of these cameras and even have a half dozen trips to Venice to compare . Based on your images you gave us ..you do not require a fast AF camera . You also do not require a high ISO champion . I had no trouble photographing Venice with a 50/1.4 asph using the M8,M9 or the M10.
The M is by far my preferred camera for Venice because of the size ,weight and superb M lenses . The issue is can you adequately focus the RF or master the Viso as a work around . I don t see a lot of wide open captures in your images ...maybe you would like to have more but need the DOF to get a decent hit rate of in focus captures .
Both the Sl2 and the SL2-S are solutions that would improve your hit ratio but at the cost of carrying a larger and much heavier camera body . I don t agree with Lou that the Sl2 is a brick (when compared to other top mirrorless systems ) and certainly the M lenses offset to some degree that issue . But its not a M sized kit which you know is pretty nice for street shooting . (Google camera size and do your own comparisons ).
If I was trading out of the M10 for an Sl2 it would be the 47mp Sl2 ....those Venice images would look better with the 47MP captures .
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Color and the aesthetic you have produced appears like a classic negative .....the SL range looks more like Kodachrome ..but both can create similar looks thru post processing . Google the Kodachrome Project . The aesthetic produced by the lens will be similar .
==++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One additional thought ...I would consider the Q2 as a possible 2nd body with an SL2 . I could easily shoot 100% of my photographs in Venice with a Q2 . At 47MP you can use the in camera cropping to create 28/35/50 FOV with plenty of MPs . AF is terrific and fast so you can shoot wide open . Batteries are same as SL2.
You can find used Q2 bodies for about $4000. Look at MacFilos for a nice post about using the Q2 with in camera cropping followed by LR enhance to bring back the MPs. (You can do the same with C1 and Topaz Gigapixel AI).
The M is by far my preferred camera for Venice because of the size ,weight and superb M lenses . The issue is can you adequately focus the RF or master the Viso as a work around . I don t see a lot of wide open captures in your images ...maybe you would like to have more but need the DOF to get a decent hit rate of in focus captures .
Both the Sl2 and the SL2-S are solutions that would improve your hit ratio but at the cost of carrying a larger and much heavier camera body . I don t agree with Lou that the Sl2 is a brick (when compared to other top mirrorless systems ) and certainly the M lenses offset to some degree that issue . But its not a M sized kit which you know is pretty nice for street shooting . (Google camera size and do your own comparisons ).
If I was trading out of the M10 for an Sl2 it would be the 47mp Sl2 ....those Venice images would look better with the 47MP captures .
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Color and the aesthetic you have produced appears like a classic negative .....the SL range looks more like Kodachrome ..but both can create similar looks thru post processing . Google the Kodachrome Project . The aesthetic produced by the lens will be similar .
==++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One additional thought ...I would consider the Q2 as a possible 2nd body with an SL2 . I could easily shoot 100% of my photographs in Venice with a Q2 . At 47MP you can use the in camera cropping to create 28/35/50 FOV with plenty of MPs . AF is terrific and fast so you can shoot wide open . Batteries are same as SL2.
You can find used Q2 bodies for about $4000. Look at MacFilos for a nice post about using the Q2 with in camera cropping followed by LR enhance to bring back the MPs. (You can do the same with C1 and Topaz Gigapixel AI).
Thank you Roger, this is very helpful. I also used my M10 and the 50mm Summilux ASPH in Venice quite happily, with a Sony A7RII and ZM25 Biogon for the wider shots. Re the Q, I already have a Sony RX1RII as my hi res af camera. It's mainly my eyesight wether using the Visoflex or the RF on the M10. I'm looking for a simpler experience, like the Sony A9 I also have but with the Leica look
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Have you tried your Sony and the 50 summilux M with a AF M to E adapter ?
Yep, I have a Novoflex adapter but I don't get the richness of a Leica file.
I mainly agree with Roger, but not about the SL not being a brick.
I shot an entire 10 days in Venice with my Q and in the end published a book with Venice (Q) and Florence (M). One image was issued that was shot with my IQ4150 Achromatic on an Alpa.
See https://www.louisfoubare.com for some examples.
I shot an entire 10 days in Venice with my Q and in the end published a book with Venice (Q) and Florence (M). One image was issued that was shot with my IQ4150 Achromatic on an Alpa.
See https://www.louisfoubare.com for some examples.
Hi ––– Like others here I could make pictures with bigger cameras and did so for decades, but ended up remaining with the M system for two reasons. It's the only digital platform which, by rangefinder focusing, allows me to manually focus at my chosen working aperture [i.e. stopped down], and using the tilting visoflex; to make pictures from below my normal standing eye level. Neither the SL or any other system I know of gives me these two essential working attributes. I always use the visoflex for framing, and unless I'm working with a tripod; I use rangefinder focusing. I have had eye issues and I'm sympathetic to yours, but it's not clear that you have used diopters for your M10 rangefinder window, or contrast increasing attachments? If you can gain focusing improvements to the rangefinder window, and then frame accurately with the visoflex you too might find an efficient working process with the M10.
BTW I was reluctant to stay with Leica M, and even though I considered numerous and often less expensive alternatives; could not find a viable camera to work with in place of digital M. despite my constant irritation with it. I have no idea if the above feedback is helpful or not.
............... Chris
JeffK
Well-known member
One nice thing about the M rangefinder focus patch - even with my eyes that need progressive lenses, I could still focus relatively well without my glasses - film or digital. My last M was the M10. Sold all my Leica gear in 2018, spent a year shooting with a little Ricoh GRIII because I loved the built in BW high contrast setting. Eventually a year or so later, I invested in an older achromatic P1 back to support my large format piezo BW digital printing project I was starting on. If the M10M had come out sooner, I might've looked at that instead. But my 10yr old 60mb achromatic back and MF lenses are just spectacular. (Mostly shooting focus at infinity, but I also have a little laser measure to help with less than infinity focus)
Last edited:
Well I got the SL2s which came with a free Leica M adapter. I've had it for about 4 months and it took me a while to bond with it, in fact I sent it back twice but then regretted it! After a couple of months of manual focus I bought the Sigma L 35mm 1.2 which I love but of course it makes the SL large and heavy. I probably wouldn't take it away for travelling. We managed to get to the South of France for a week last October and I took the RX1RII and the M10. I mostly used the ZM25 on the M10. On close inspection I find the RX1RII is very difficult to keep shake free even in that good bright French lighting. Maybe a Q2 is the answer! Thank you for your help
I went through similar dilemmas in the past trying to decide between keeping an M240 or changing to a Leica SL (Type 601). I eventually kept the SL and ended up trading the M240 for an M246. I combination I've enjoyed a great deal. From a portability point of view the SL bodies with M lenses are not bad, but an M mount body will still obviously win that contest.
The best advice I can give regarding figuring out how the files render from different cameras is to subscribe to Reid Reviews. He has detailed comparisons of M vs SL bodies, M vs M bodies etc. I've found the manufacturer's colour science (in this case Leica) plays a more important role in the file colour science than particular bodies with different sensors, maybe with the exclusion of the earlier CCD sensor cameras. Anyway, I found the subscription to a dedicated site that tests these things saved me a lot of time, effort and cost.
The best advice I can give regarding figuring out how the files render from different cameras is to subscribe to Reid Reviews. He has detailed comparisons of M vs SL bodies, M vs M bodies etc. I've found the manufacturer's colour science (in this case Leica) plays a more important role in the file colour science than particular bodies with different sensors, maybe with the exclusion of the earlier CCD sensor cameras. Anyway, I found the subscription to a dedicated site that tests these things saved me a lot of time, effort and cost.
hotshoe
Member
TL;DR: The SL2 system is better technically (if using SL glass), but I generally prefer the images and shooting experience of M system to SL2. Evaluate for yourself before switching, and don't rely on reviews. The two systems couldn't be more different.
I have both systems. Unless money is a factor, I highly recommend you get the SL2 and live with it for a while before swapping systems. I'm only saying this because, as you're likely aware, the shooting experience couldn't be more different between these two systems. IMHO, the SL system only shines relative to the M if using SL glass, for the optics and if AF is needed. That said, SL2/s AF performance is not on the same level as what you get from the big three, so set your expectations accordingly if AF is the reason for switching -- but perfectly sufficient for anything non-action oriented.
In terms of files, it naturally depends on if thinking M10 or M10R (ruling out M10M since evaluating vis-a-vis SL2/s). Using the same glass (m lens adapted to SL2) so camera is only variable, the differences between SLS2 and M10R are subtle enough that I suggest you not let "the files" be a dominant factor in your decision making. The M10 sensor is older, non-BSI type, so if you stress the files in LR or C1, you're going to see the SL files hold up better, but, frankly, the M10 files are still very good and I still wouldn't let it be a factor. If you're needing the AF, then it is a much more compelling reason to switch. Putting M lenses on the SL2 works, but peaking is not a very reliable way to nail focus and I find using M10 focus patch over peaking to be better and faster, and using magnify is also slow, so if moving to SL for AF, then best to mount AF lenses and use the AF.
Regarding the SL system, it's a system I struggle with decision to keep or not. In terms of design and build quality, it's an easy camera to love, and the shooting experience, for me, is second only to M, but I don't find myself using the SL2 very often (lately, mainly for mounting to Actus since I have an L-mount camera adapter). The problem is, the number of times of reach for M vs SL camera is about 10:1. the M is more portable and, as indicated, I prefer the shooting experience of M to SL. Also, while highly subjective, I generally prefer the images I get from M system over SL. It doesn't make sense on paper, and perhaps because M forces me to slow down more, or maybe possibly because I'm biased towards using it more often and therefore have more experience with it, or both. IMO, the main benefit of SL is the AF and IBIS (esp. as compared to M10R). My challenge w/ the SL2 is I'm an MF shooter first and only use AF when absolutely necessary, such as sports/action, and in this regard there are much better options available outside of the Leica ecosystem. Hence, I don't use SL for sport/action either.
Of course all the above is my opinion, which is all you'll find on forums. The only opinion that counts is yours so take in all the inputs, but, again, I highly recommend you to try (for a while) before pulling the trigger on switching from M to SL2 because they're apples and oranges systems. The SL (601) is also a very nice option, esp. if you don't care about video, and used ones in excellent condition are readily available for a fraction of the cost of SL2, and even include build-in GPS, which is a nice perk. It's great camera to get some seat time w/ the SL system if thinking about an SL2, and if don't need the resolution of SL2 or more video-centric SL2s, you may find SL (601) is right for you.
Last edited:
I prefer shooting M lenses on M body, and with the new Visoflex it has become also better for the lenses where you do not have frames in the OVF or where you want more focus accurancy (i.e. 75/1.5).
If I shoot SL I would want AF lenses mainly. So for me it is M: for simplicity, portability, mainly shooting 28-50, and some 21 and 75. SL and AF for anything where I need more flexibility, speed, tele, etc.
If I shoot SL I would want AF lenses mainly. So for me it is M: for simplicity, portability, mainly shooting 28-50, and some 21 and 75. SL and AF for anything where I need more flexibility, speed, tele, etc.
I do not have an M but I’ve got an SL2. I and everyone else can tell you the EVF on that is from the future! So is the LCD display! It is the best ever I’ve used and I’ve used ALL brands
with very effective focus peaking, your M lenses are going to be easier than ever to use on the SL2/SL2-S. I’ve used a few M lenses on it but not too often. I have sufficient native SL glass 24-90,90-280 and 75. IMO, you may miss the workflow of the M system but you won’t miss the IQ. That’s just my opinion but like I said, I have not used an M so can’t speak much about that system. The SL2’s ergonomics are quite good and with lighter M glass, weight shouldn’t be an issue. I do have a voigtlander 40 f/1.2 M glass and it works great on the SL2.