Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/05/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Bob (and all) I have the M (Typ 240) and the SL. I have used only the Summilux M 50 ASPH and the Apo Summicron M 75 ASPH (via adapter) a very limited amount to try it out. So my opinions just on your specific questions, 1. None that I am aware of. 2. the native colour rendering from the SL is a little more neutral, reds especially 'better' Bottom line...Not in my opinion , the M sensors are more optimised. I bet that the differences are very subtle though. Bonus opinion, get the SL, it does lots more stuff that the M cannot and the 24-90 is excellent. Cheers Geoff http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman , Bob Adler < > > rgacpa at gmail.com> > wrote: > Hello all. > I'm contemplating selling some gear (M240, M21mm/1,4 ASPH, Sony > A7r II modified by Kolarivision for Leica WA lenses) plus some > cash for > an SL and the 24-90. Two questions: > 1. Given a large collection of recent generation M lenses, are there any > known issues? MINOR degradation at the corners of images made with WA > lenses used wide open are not a big deal to me. > 2. Is there a noticeable positive difference in raw files? What > differences (positive or negative). Bottom line, is the image quality, vs > the M240, significantly improved with M lenses to warrant this > move? Not really talking about the differences in how one works with the > two systems. > Thanks in advance for your input, > Bob Adler >