Leica M10 Review

[Rob C]

You sound like my wife!

;-)

I don't think you checked that before you posted... ? AFAIK we are talking about two of them, not three. Please tell me I'm not mistaken.

;-)

Rob

[Rob C]

Sounds like in the end you liked the purchasing experience discovering it didn't suck, reminiscent of this:

That didn't suck!

Don Bryant

Well, I was convinced it didn't suck before I order it - Ford Escort XRi - it was just that I objected to getting effed about because I was one customer (repeat one) disappointed (after a promise of delivery date) and dumped at the back of the queue [à la Obama concept :-) ] because I wasn't buying a fleet of them that week... However, it turned out to be a very different thing to the predecessor, the XR3i, which was fun to use (except for heavy parking) whereas the XRi turned out to be very much softer, but faster in a straight line. Very tail-happy on narrow, wet roads. However, from that one to the current Fiesta, they have become ever more difficult to park, especially if you have to do it alongside a kerb by reversing into a short gap between cars: the shape of the rear side window rises and you lose all sense of location. I miss the 70s cars where you always knew where the corners were!

But it gave me some happy years, and as with the one before it, I felt quite sad to see it go. But after twelve or thirteen years, and a lot of money going on repainting bits of it for the final four yaers or so...

I enjoyed that video; looked like a lot of fun to make. Thank you for the link.

Rob C

[algrove]

I still have it.  I also have a 35mm Summicron F2 still mounted on an M7.  Time to get a digital M to use it again :-)

Alain
If you end up with a digital M, it might be worth sending your existing lenses off to DAG who can 6 bit code them for lens corrections, etc. in the M10 and CLA and adjust them for digital needs.

[alainbriot]

Alain
If you end up with a digital M, it might be worth sending your existing lenses off to DAG who can 6 bit code them for lens corrections, etc. in the M10 and CLA and adjust them for digital needs.

Thanks for the tip.  I'll keep it in mind.

[ndevlin]

despite their antiquated nature and eye-watering prices they give me more joy than any other camera I've ever owned.

This.

[alainbriot]

There's actually a lot of value in having an efficient manual focus camera such as the Leica. Right now for such situations I use a Fuji X100s and in low light, indoors or at night events, autofocus doesn't have enough contrast or light to focus quickly, if at all, and the alternate manual focus option just isn't practical.  Leica manual focusing on the other hand is quick and effective.

[airfang]

There's actually a lot of value in having an efficient manual focus camera such as the Leica. Right now for such situations I use a Fuji X100s and in low light, indoors or at night events, autofocus doesn't have enough contrast or light to focus quickly, if at all, and the alternate manual focus option just isn't practical.  Leica manual focusing on the other hand is quick and effective.

In those situations usually it is quite hard to focus via the rangefinder as well.

[Rob C]

Can't say I remember any focussing problems with af and low light with either my D200 or D700. Where I have found difficulty with af is in fairly normal daylight, when I'm trying to decide between which part of an image I want sharp in situations where there are lots of reflections, like shooting into a shop window. In a case such a that, only the human mind can call the shot and decide which level of the image is important. So yes, manual focus still has an important rôle to play, but I don't have the current experience to know how well a Leica focussing system tackles that sort of situation, which is not an everyday one.

What it does imply, though, is that a proper slr screen for manual focussing is long overdue in digital cameras! I am led to believe that af is not read off the viewing screen anyway, but from a smaller, sub-mirror in the box. If so, then why would the texture of the main screen have to be compromised as it is?

Rob

[Rob C]

Keith,

Ah, but: in that image you are working at what appears to be a well stopped-down aperture which hides a multitude of focussing mistakes.

I have been tending to work either wide open or about a stop down at best; not that it's any better a way or not, just that I need to differentiate planes for what I'm trying to achieve these days. So due to that, which as you know means pretty much WYS(on the screen)IWYG because af on a dslr works at wide open - as does manual focussing unless you want to stop down to the working aperture just to check - which on tiny cameras screens ain't that brilliant either (no, not going to cry over the number 500 right now!), I found that using manual in those situations was often the best way open to me (not counting the eye probems that have hit me). However, a glitch still remains because a 50mm at f2 or f1.8 on 135 format cameras, used at the distance it has to be in order to cover an area of what - six feet-wide window fame? is going to have too much DOF for my intention, especially when the reflected plane I want crisp is of something perhaps a few feet behind me... I need a super-fast which I ain't got!

I wonder how a rangefinder mechanism works out what you want (in the case of both our intentions with these sorts of confused images); at best, I'd imagine it to have exactly the same decisions to make as any other system, with the same problem of knowing what's key.

But as I've indicated before, the last time I touched a Leica rangefinder camera was '65 when my last boss had one (and the only other Leica I've held was an R6 many years later), and so I'm not at all qualified to comment on how a current Leica M might handle in reality.

Rob

[Rob C]

Rob, I should add, this is of course just idle chat, if you really want to know if an M would suit then perhaps a trip to Barcelona would answer your questions and provide more of those shop window shots than you could shake a stick at.

There again, perhaps it's just safer not to know.

;-)

Too true!

;-)

Rob

[Sal_VE]

It seems like a small step up from the M (240) considering the price. What kills me thoug is the image quality generated by the review camera/lens combination:
1. outstanding true and natural colors, not the full saturated overkilled of other DSLR
2. Excellent definition and Perfect sharpness, not too much that usually shows in average lenses digitally super corrected
3. wonderful out of focus, maintains structure so that the different image planes are well separated but I still can understand what is the backgroud about.
I cannot find this level of subleties in other cameras/lens and, for me, this is all it matters, all I want for my best pics.
It does have its limitation but you would not have a camera this size and quality with.... autofocus, Viewfinder, image stabilization.....

[Rob C]

It seems like a small step up from the M (240) considering the price. What kills me thoug is the image quality generated by the review camera/lens combination:
1. outstanding true and natural colors, not the full saturated overkilled of other DSLR
2. Excellent definition and Perfect sharpness, not too much that usually shows in average lenses digitally super corrected
3. wonderful out of focus, maintains structure so that the different image planes are well separated but I still can understand what is the backgroud about.
I cannot find this level of subleties in other cameras/lens and, for me, this is all it matters, all I want for my best pics.
It does have its limitation but you would not have a camera this size and quality with.... autofocus, Viewfinder, image stabilization.....

An intriguing post, Sal.

I was wondering if you could show me the source for your point No.1? I'm probably missing some information here, but I don't quite grasp how that might have been measured objectively.

Rob C

[Rob C]

I can only imagine Sal is referring to his subjective view of in camera processed jpegs???

;-)

Rob

P.S.

I went for an eye test this morning, and the young lady made me feel quite young again. Obviously, she must be rather good at her job.

Anyway that aside, I had made a picture (attached) of the basic problem that I encountered wearing the current set, and she asked me who had made the illustration for me. (She is not only able to see the dashing young man-about-town behind the disguise, but also the artist deeply hidden a few layers further in.)

I was going to tell her that the camera makes great pictures, is a wonderful artist in its own right, but thought that her PhD might not actually be relevant to the conversation, so I desisted, flashed another beguiling smile her way, flushed with pleasure, and admitted guilt (for the artwork shown to her - gotta be careful in this litigious world. My granddaughter told me that).

Seems the prescription has changed rather a lot in the past couple of years, but I'm good for my age. Which tells me not a lot.

[Telecaster]

I too recently had a thorough eye exam. Got a huge kick out of seeing the colorful insides of my eyeballs. Modern medical imaging tech is so fab! Also got a clean bill of (eye) health and a minor prescription change.

Without specs my zone of focus is ~6" in front of my face, ± a small fraction.

-Dave-

[Rob C]

It's ironic, really.

When I was about forty-four I realised that I was having difficulty getting the enlarger focussed, so I had a pair of specs made and that was that. Shorty afterwards, I decided to give up all ideas about continuing darkroom work because of the realities of water on this island and, added to that, the fact that my work had become 100% transparencies. So apart from reading the Sunday Times now and then - when I could prise it away from my wife - those glasses remained in their case.

However, at the other end of the visual scale, my distance vision appears to have been somewhat extraordinary at that time. Friends of ours owned a penthouse on the Paseo Maritimo in Palma, and I remember sitting out on the roof terrace they had, looking at some ships at anchor in the Bay of Palma. I happened to remark about the company insignia on the funnel of one of them, and our friends' son called me out on it. He suggested that I knew something about that ship already, or it would have been impossible for me to read the stuff on the funnel: far too far away. That annoyed me a little bit, but I told him nope, never seen the thing in my life before, and that as he knew perfectly well, I didn't live in Palma. Anyway, he went indoors and returned with binoculars, and yes, I had been right. Whether his own vision was impaired or not, I don't know. Obviously, to me I thought seeing what I saw was normal.

Anyway, years later I started to experience difficulty focussing the digital Nikon, and the problem was that if I could nail focus rapidly, then I was okay, but if not, then I'd hunt focus so long that I could never be sure where the hell the point of maximum crispness really lay. I had no af lenses in those days. A few years later, I mentioned this to the doc. whilst there on another matter, and he set me up for an appointment at the local hospital. I ended up being diagnosed with glaucoma, and the result has been that my early distance abilty has vanished but I can now read the tiniest print without any problems whatsoever. Talk about reversal development! If there's a positve, it's that I no longer need specs to use the computer.

Rob

[dempski]

On first impression, the M10 looks like an overall improvement to the M240, especially for normal focal length street, travel, and low-light photography.  But unfortunately, the EVF feature I use most has been omitted, the electronic level tool.  Among my many projects are landscapes using wide and ultra-wide lenses, and this tool is critical for ease of use, maintaining framing integrity, and minimizing distortion.  I leave it on all the time when using the M240 and EVF.  Street shooters in urban environments may get by with a grid because of the availability of vertical and horizontal lines, but in the natural world these are not always readily available.

I’m worried that this is a signal that Leica feels ultra-wide photography belongs elsewhere, and are withdrawing underlying support for its lenses on the M platform.   Why else give us access to a better EVF, but withhold the tools we want the EVF for?  M ultra-wide lenses work well on the SL, but that camera is hardly an ideal travel camera, being larger, heavier, and intimidating when photographing people.

I’ve asked Leica if the tilt-meter hardware is onboard, but they have not responded.  Perhaps Kevin could use his contacts and find out for all of us??

[Rob C]

On first impression, the M10 looks like an overall improvement to the M240, especially for normal focal length street, travel, and low-light photography.  But unfortunately, the EVF feature I use most has been omitted, the electronic level tool.  Among my many projects are landscapes using wide and ultra-wide lenses, and this tool is critical for ease of use, maintaining framing integrity, and minimizing distortion.  I leave it on all the time when using the M240 and EVF.  Street shooters in urban environments may get by with a grid because of the availability of vertical and horizontal lines, but in the natural world these are not always readily available.

I’m worried that this is a signal that Leica feels ultra-wide photography belongs elsewhere, and are withdrawing underlying support for its lenses on the M platform.   Why else give us access to a better EVF, but withhold the tools we want the EVF for?  M ultra-wide lenses work well on the SL, but that camera is hardly an ideal travel camera, being larger, heavier, and intimidating when photographing people.

I’ve asked Leica if the tilt-meter hardware is onboard, but they have not responded.  Perhaps Kevin could use his contacts and find out for all of us??

It could simply be that for that specific camera they have other plans; perhaps as they are now a multi-model company they will make different strokes for those different sorts of folks. Good idea: if you are into the system and have the money for the lenses etc, then specialised bodies make sense, too. I don't imagine anyone serious about their work within that price bracket lives by one body alone!

If they have ironed out all their early glitches, then they are probably going to be very successful - I wish them well. Regardless of my personal doubts of the suitability of the sytem for myself, had I the free funds to risk, I would buy one just to find out.

Rob C

[Sal_VE]

Rob,
I own a Sony 7RM2. I had a Nikon D800E and before a Canon 5D M2. None of them gave me the color and White balance fidelity that I get with my M240. Is it the lens or the the sensor, I don't know but the subtlety that I see in Leica's color is clear. The color is less saturated and the transition is more gradual. Of course I have compared them side by side with raw pics. Look at skin tones of raw files processed with C1. The difference is subtle but is there. I believe it depends in part from the lens and in part from the curve applied to the raw data.
If you like puchy pics with lots of saturated colors than Sony, Nikon and Canon are better. As I grow older I start to appreciate small differences, gradual tones. Sharp detail and strong contrast are for reprduction. Soft focus and nuance are for artitistic pleasure. Whenever time allows I go back to shooting medium format film where I find the tonality we have lost with digital.
It is a personal view of course. I do not expect other to agree. But would it be a boring world if we all thoght the same?
May I suggest the book "Naturalistic photography" written by P.H Emerson in 1899? Art is not in the details but in the picture as a Whole.
Sal

[Rob C]

Rob,
I own a Sony 7RM2. I had a Nikon D800E and before a Canon 5D M2. None of them gave me the color and White balance fidelity that I get with my M240. Is it the lens or the the sensor, I don't know but the subtlety that I see in Leica's color is clear. The color is less saturated and the transition is more gradual. Of course I have compared them side by side with raw pics. Look at skin tones of raw files processed with C1. The difference is subtle but is there. I believe it depends in part from the lens and in part from the curve applied to the raw data.
If you like puchy pics with lots of saturated colors than Sony, Nikon and Canon are better. As I grow older I start to appreciate small differences, gradual tones. Sharp detail and strong contrast are for reprduction. Soft focus and nuance are for artitistic pleasure. Whenever time allows I go back to shooting medium format film where I find the tonality we have lost with digital.
It is a personal view of course. I do not expect other to agree. But would it be a boring world if we all thoght the same?
May I suggest the book "Naturalistic photography" written by P.H Emerson in 1899? Art is not in the details but in the picture as a Whole.
Sal

If you were back in film days, you could have done what I did with a friend: he shot Pentax and I shot Nikon, both of us on half-a-roll of the same film. That way, processing was identical as was film batch. Using the same target, we were able to compare quite well.

I did have to make some prints from Leica-shot transparencies, and I thought the film colours were very attractive.

However, digital introduces so many variables, starting right at the beginning with basic camera set-up right through processing, that I think comparisons can be pretty meaningless.

The trick is to love what you have.

Rob C

[mbaginy]

The trick is to love what you have.

Rob C

And that is very cost effective.