M10

[Vivek]

Of course, again, not disputing your reality at all.

I can use a Sony camera easily. No problems whatsoever.

I am not pleased with the utter lack of expertise at Leica when it comes to digital sensors/cameras.

I hope that in the year 2018, Leica will hire a few with knowledge to produce decent digital cameras.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Of course, again, not disputing your reality at all.

I can use a Sony camera easily. No problems whatsoever.

I am not pleased with the utter lack of expertise at Leica when it comes to digital sensors/cameras.

I hope that in the year 2018, Leica will hire a few with knowledge to produce decent digital cameras.

The M 10 is the finest 135 or crop color digital camera I have shot with and I have a shot with a lot of different cameras over the years. All of the major players.

12,400 is about all the ISO I need in any situation. The M 10 delivers that. And I don't have to go through a lot of menus to see the info that is important to me; ISO, aperture and shutter speed. I don't even have to turn the camera on to see it.

Rumor has it they will have an M 10 MM and the M 10 is the digital camera that you just described.

 

[ptomsu]

Makes zero difference as to the final outcome.

So this proves you did not get what RF is at all :clap:

 

[Vivek]

RF = exfoliating sensors. I got it all right.

So this proves you did not get what RF is at all :clap:

 

[KeithL]

Most current full frame cameras from most manufacturers have more than enough image quality for this snapper.

The image quality delivered by varying sensors is certainly not a huge factor when choosing my cameras.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Just to give some balance a few other reviews. I find the files from the M 10 as good as any digital files I have worked on. I hire photographers to help on some really large corporate and private jobs (I have a very wealthy client) and one shoots with Nikon D 810s and D1Xs and another that shoots Canons 5DIVs and I 1DXs and I shot with Canon until a couple of years ago and I prefer the files from the M 10. I also have friends with both Sonys and Fujis and I have shot with both and prefer the M 10.

Heres the reviews
http://www.samhurdphotography.com/reviews/gear-review-leica-m10-review/

http://www.slack.co.uk/leica-m10.html

https://www.photolisticlife.com/2017/07/03/a-street-photographers-review-of-the-leica-m10/

http://www.jaycassario.com/blog/2017/2/4/leica-m10-first-impression-review

I certainly do not need more than 24 MPs. In fact all of these billboards I shot for clients were 24mps or less.

and

and an L Stop ad from the same image as the last billboard.

by Wrigley Field last year

 

[jlindstrom]

I find it somewhat pointless for us to debate here, wether the M10 is good enough or not. We’ve already seen it can produce huge prints and we’ve seen very nice photos out of it by very capable people. Isn’t that enough?

In all honesty, Leica is a very polarizing brand. Yes, there are more capable cameras out there for many functions. But from IQ point of view, the debate is rather useless... most, if not all, recent full frame cameras have enough IQ (when properly used) to satisfy all practical use cases.

Then there are special use cases, but as always, shouldn’t we choose the right tool for the job? Clearly if print requirement is so large, that 24mp won’t cut it, the M10 is not the right tool for the job. But that’s not the cameras fault really - it was designed & built with different criteria in mind.

The RF has a special appeal to people who use it. Sonys, Canons, Nikons can’t provide that. If one wants state of the art RF -> get the M10.

If billboard prints aren’t big enough -> get a 42mp Sony or move to medium format...

If you need to shoot rapid action like sports -> get canonikon.

If you’re a hobbyist, buy what ever tickles your fancy.

And finally, if you’re dissapointed in your Leica and switch over, it’s your choice to do so. And it’s ok to state why you did so, but should also expect to get a push back from people who still love their M10’s (or Leicas in general).

So: each to their own & horses for courses :lecture:

 

[airfrogusmc]

I find it somewhat pointless for us to debate here, wether the M10 is good enough or not. We’ve already seen it can produce huge prints and we’ve seen very nice photos out of it by very capable people. Isn’t that enough?

In all honesty, Leica is a very polarizing brand. Yes, there are more capable cameras out there for many functions. But from IQ point of view, the debate is rather useless... most, if not all, recent full frame cameras have enough IQ (when properly used) to satisfy all practical use cases.

Then there are special use cases, but as always, shouldn’t we choose the right tool for the job? Clearly if print requirement is so large, that 24mp won’t cut it, the M10 is not the right tool for the job. But that’s not the cameras fault really - it was designed & built with different criteria in mind.

The RF has a special appeal to people who use it. Sonys, Canons, Nikons can’t provide that. If one wants state of the art RF -> get the M10.

If billboard prints aren’t big enough -> get a 42mp Sony or move to medium format...

If you need to shoot rapid action like sports -> get canonikon.

If you’re a hobbyist, buy what ever tickles your fancy.

And finally, if you’re dissapointed in your Leica and switch over, it’s your choice to do so. And it’s ok to state why you did so, but should also expect to get a push back from people who still love their M10’s (or Leicas in general).

So: each to their own & horses for courses :lecture:

Yep it's nice to have choices.

 

[jonoslack]

Pretty scathing verdict:

https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/leica-m10-sensor-testes-dxomark-odd-behavior-color-dynamic-range/

Full frame camera with APS-C performance!

Quite right . . . . . . But I’d like to see a photograph which was a failure . . But would have been a success with a 5% increase in dynamic range (perhaps you can show us one Vivek?)

 

[Godfrey]

There's very little benefit to be had from reading DXO results if you're interested in making photographs.

 

[jlindstrom]

Some wise words above from Jono & Godfrey.

When I’m in the market for a new camera, I tend to read plenty of tests and reviews & first hand experiences. BUT it’s not to find the best scores, rather I read up on a camera I’d be ready to buy on the spot just to see/find what the quirks are and make sure I can live with them.

With the M10 you could see the usual complaints about lcd not being up there with the best and rangefinder being antique when compared to AF etc etc from people who clearly are not the target audience. These are easy to disregard, when you already knew that in advance.

The meaningful stuff comes, when you read fex. Jono saying the RF has been improved over previous generations etc.

Dxo mark - yeah, it’s nice if the camera would happen to win the lot... but 2 months later something better will be out already. I had no issues with the M8 quality, so M10 not trumping the competition is meaningless.

Further proof of that is also Godfreys writings here, where it was said it’s a nice camera but not nice enough to warrant upgrade from MD. So clearly IQ is good, but the change from M240-generation isn’t massive.

Reading these things and many others sort of gives you the idea. The internals have gone through evolution - not revolution. Biggest changes in the M10 are then the external changes: smaller, lighter, better VF etc.

So purchase choice then is about how it feels to operate. Are the external developments worth the money?

full disclosure: they were for me.

 

[algrove]

I saw the Jesko/Raber interview yesterday on LULA and it gives insight in how the camera has evolved from the M240. Combine that video with the one before it with Daniel and it somewhat completes the M digital story, like it or not.

 

[D&A]

I saw the Jesko/Raber interview yesterday on LULA and it gives insight in how the camera has evolved from the M240. Combine that video with the one before it with Daniel and it somewhat completes the M digital story, like it or not.

I say this tongue and cheek, but the digital story (with M or any other camera) is rarely ever done, or the manufacturers would have nothing to sell to those always looking for improvements and/or reasons to upgrade. ....but I understand what you were saying about the M.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Godfrey]

I say this tongue and cheek, but the digital story (with M or any other camera) is rarely ever done, or the manufacturers would have nothing to sell to those always looking for improvements and/or reasons to upgrade. ....but I understand what you were saying about the M.

(bolded) This is the audience for DXO and other reviewers, and to whom their comments and evaluations are directed.

I'm not a part of that audience: I'm not "always looking for improvements and/or reasons to upgrade". I don't see the point, if what I'm using is producing the results I want and I like the way it works. I just spent two-plus weeks traveling and shooting with my Leica M-D: I can't think of a single thing about it that is inciting me to think about upgrading it. In fact, the more I use it, the more satisfied with it I become and the less likely I am to be even remotely interested in a better viewfinder or a newer generation sensor—I can't find anything wrong with what it has already that warrants spending a whole bunch of money for an "improvement."

I look for a new camera when what I have is not satisfying me for some specific reason. Then I read camera tests, and I'm very careful to ignore the specious editorial commentary unless I happen to know from long experience reading a particular reviewer that their opinions and what they value tends to align with my own.

The "digital story", as it were, is finished with each camera as it is released to the public. It is what it is: take it or leave it. If the manufacturer does a proactive job with expanding the camera's capabilities through firmware and supplemental software updates, the story expands with nice appendices and epilogs. That's all. Unless you're one of... "those always looking for improvements and/or reasons to upgrade." In that case, the story of a camera is never complete ... It cannot be, ever, regardless of whether a camera is a digital capture device or film device. And you will never be fully satisfied with any camera released for sale.

Do remember that film cameras were updated on a frequent basis in detail ways. The manufacturers simply didn't stupidly ballyhoo every minute/incremental change as a revolutionary step forwards until the digital era had begun. I can conjecture about the reasons for this to my heart's content, but I'd rather not waste my time with that.

G

 

[Vivek]

Quite right . . . . . . But I’d like to see a photograph which was a failure . . But would have been a success with a 5% increase in dynamic range (perhaps you can show us one Vivek?)

Jono, There are countless examples. Just when I started using the high end Sony, it became immediately obvious.

Here is an example of that success (there was no second chance to capture this again) using the RX1R II:

Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

I chose the Rx1R II deliberately because this is my 3rd camera. The first was recalled for a minor flaw and replaced with a new one. The second one was replaced with a brand new unit because their repair facility messed up a minor fix. Superb customer service. That (unlike Leica) does not cost 150 Euros for a dust up while replacing a sensor.

the monochrome A7rII(m) is a notch above this. Totally astonishing.

 

[airfrogusmc]

In my opinion in the world of one size fits all, the auto everything, video and monster menus world; the true alternatives out there are cameras like the Leica MM, M-D which I totally get, M 262 and M 10. Instead of following the herd they are different. If you are a photographer like I am that can work faster and better without all the stuff and aren't all that interested in staying on the gadget go round then and these cameras like the MM, M-D and M 10 really fit the way you see and work then these are really true alternatives. Because to be honest I can't see a bunch of difference between all the other options out there.

When I went digital in 2005 (went out of film kicking and screaming and do miss it) because of clients and a force downsize, divorce and lost my darkroom, if Leica M would have had a FF digital option I wouldn't have gone Canon.

And I am not trying to say that the image you just posted is bad but it is nothing that I couldn't have done with the original MM or an M 10 and for me and my taste and the way I work I am not all that crazy about the processing.

Just because you like your Sony doesn't mean the M 10 is deficient. You don't like it don't buy it. But to try and prove in a post like this that the M 10 is in someway less than any other camera out there is pointless because if the M 10 or any camera fits the way you see and work then it isn't deficient or less a camera. More MPs or the latest greatest doesn't automatically = better either.

Love these two quotes by two really great photographers and they are both still relevant today.

"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE." - Ernst Haas

"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it." - Edward Weston

 

[ptomsu]

In my opinion in the world of one size fits all, the auto everything, video and monster menus world; the true alternatives out there are cameras like the Leica MM, M-D which I totally get, M 262 and M 10. Instead of following the herd they are different. If you are a photographer like I am that can work faster and better without all the stuff and aren't all that interested in staying on the gadget go round then and these cameras like the MM, M-D and M 10 really fit the way you see and work then these are really true alternatives. Because to be honest I can't see a bunch of difference between all the other options out there.

When I went digital in 2005 (went out of film kicking and screaming and do miss it) because of clients and a force downsize, divorce and lost my darkroom, if Leica M would have had a FF digital option I wouldn't have gone Canon.

And I am not trying to say that the image you just posted is bad but it is nothing that I couldn't have done with the original MM or an M 10 and for me and my taste and the way I work I am not all that crazy about the processing.

Just because you like your Sony doesn't mean the M 10 is deficient. You don't like it don't buy it. But to try and prove in a post like this that the M 10 is in someway less than any other camera out there is pointless because if the M 10 or any camera fits the way you see and work then it isn't deficient or less a camera. More MPs or the latest greatest doesn't automatically = better either.

Love these two quotes by two really great photographers and they are both still relevant today.

"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE." - Ernst Haas

"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it." - Edward Weston

I actually could not agree more!

I have been through so many systems and brands both analog and digital during my photography life that I learnt the hard way you better concentrate on your real needs and not on what different brands are pushing as the latest and greatest in order to win you over.

Having said that Leica unfortunately had a pretty long hangover between analog and some useful digital implementations, that forced me finally into Nikon (which I abandoned meanwhile) and Olympus 43/m43 that is my main shooting equipment today and I am VERY happy with. Having said that the M10 and SL both are very high on my gear to get list, especially as I still own and love a number of M lenses and also some R lenses - only drawback currently is the price for those cameras, but I feel that this will get away sooner or later

And for now I think I would get the M10 first!

 

[Vivek]

airfrogusmc, i did not post the image to get some sort of affirmation from you (see who/what I replied to). No doubt your style of photography suits the gear you use.

Your blind faith in Leica is truly appreciated!:clap:

 

[airfrogusmc]

airfrogusmc, i did not post the image to get some sort of affirmation from you (see who/what I replied to). No doubt your style of photography suits the gear you use.

Your blind faith in Leica is truly appreciated!:clap:

My so called blind faith is in equipment that suits my vision and the way I work at that moment in time which when I do settle on a system doesn't change often. I shot with my 500 C/Ms for a couple of decades and I still have my Canon F-1s.

And I still do not see what that image shows that an M 10 or even an original MM can't do it terms of DR or whatever else you were trying to show.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I actually could not agree more!

I have been through so many systems and brands both analog and digital during my photography life that I learnt the hard way you better concentrate on your real needs and not on what different brands are pushing as the latest and greatest in order to win you over.

Having said that Leica unfortunately had a pretty long hangover between analog and some useful digital implementations, that forced me finally into Nikon (which I abandoned meanwhile) and Olympus 43/m43 that is my main shooting equipment today and I am VERY happy with. Having said that the M10 and SL both are very high on my gear to get list, especially as I still own and love a number of M lenses and also some R lenses - only drawback currently is the price for those cameras, but I feel that this will get away sooner or later

And for now I think I would get the M10 first!

The M 10 would be a great choice and yes I agree that both Leica and Hasselblad were late to the digital game. I think that the M 10 is less now than both the top of the line Nikon and Canon. I guess I'm very lucky because my pro work pays for everything I am able to get what I need.