Jump to content

Leica alternative (M10 related)


hollisd

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A friend of mine is a Fuji nut and has written in lots and lots and lots of depth about the X-Pro line on his blog.

 

https://adambonn.com/tag/x-pro2/

 

If you have any questions he is very responsive and knowledgeable.

 

I am that nut !!!

 

Well I'm a X-Pro range nut, the other Fujis don't hold the same appeal to me as the 'Pro does

 

The X-Pro and x100 range is as unique as the M IMO (ymmv) BUT VERY LITTLE LIKE AN M

 

People buy a X-Pro1 or 2 thinking they're getting something M like and they're not.

 

This will be quite painfully apparent if you've actually shot with a RF

 

That said... if ones love of a RF is 'seeing outiside of the framelines' then the OVF Fujis do a very, very good job (give or take which lens you have on)

 

If ones RF love is that wonderful moment of harmony, when the 2 images coincide, and you're looking at a pure view of your scene and confident of focus then the Fujis are completely different.

 

That I can have a live histogram in my OVF is a Fuji feature that I like very much for example

 

I don't own an M (too much £££££) but Leica lent me one, with a 50 lux, and my take away was that the M was a master of one particular way of working, whereas the Fuji is a jack of many trades.

 

If you only need that one thing, then there's only one choice... but as mentioned above by another poster, you may find you need a second camera to do all the other stuff...

Edited by Adam Bonn
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have and use an X-PRO2 and an M10.  I love them both.  In my opinion, the M10 is very much the classic, SLOW, DELIBERATE photography tool.  The X-PRO2 is a "modern" digital tool that lends itself to a diverse range of photographic assignments with relatively fast autofocus, both a digital or optical viewfinder, and "speed" of operation similar to other contemporary digital cameras (no need to remove the bottom plate to get to the dual cards slots or battery), etc.  The APS sensor in the X-PRO2 performs very well and I don't consider it to be an issue as far as choosing between the two models.  And then there is the glass!  Fuji makes very good glass (I have a number of Fuji's lenses) that is far more affordable and performs similarly (IMO) to the Leica glass.  I have easily photographed subjects using everything from the equivalent of a 15mm to a 600mm with the X-PRO2.. no way you'd be able to do that, practically speaking with the M10.  The X-PRO2 fits the hand nicely, has a rangefinder "style" that I personally enjoy very much, and overall it the more versatile and practical system.  Now, having said all this, if I had to choose between the X-PRO2 and the M10, for my particular style and the way I use those two systems, I WOULD CHOOSE THE M10.  Fortunately, I have other systems for other uses.  But if someone is looking for a more affordable mirrorless, interchangeable lens system, I think the X-Pro2 is excellent.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Hollis. 'Way back in the early 80's I used a Canon AE-1 myself. With the small, light pseudo-bayonet FD lenses in 24/35/85mm and split-prism focusing, it was a pretty nice "poor man's Leica" - small, light, a bit more substantial feel than an Olympus OM (another SLR "almost-Leica"). I used it with the compact A winder (not for speed, but to avoid sticking my thumb in my eye advancing the film) and the noisy, clanky winder was its only drawback.

 

I was thinking just the other day that my M10 is - finally, after 35-40 years - the "perfection" of exactly what I had been seeking with the AE-1, and ever since.

 

For a digital "RF", the only other thing that comes close is, as others have said, the optical-viewfinder Fujis - X-Pro (used), X-Pro 2, X100.

 

If I were not already established in the M system (lenses already paid for, older M bodies to trade or sell and minimize the cash expended on the M10 - I actually paid zero cash for mine, just trade value) - or if Leica M's no longer existed - I'd have jumped all over the X-Pro line when it was introduced.

 

As to the possibility of other competition appearing: a few years back when Zeiss was selling the "Zeiss-Ikon" M-mount film body (built by Cosina), dreamers asked why there couldn't be a digital version. The Zeiss CEO's response was along the lines of "Zeiss is not persuaded that there is a viable market for one digital rangefinder camera, let alone two!"

 

The camera industry is littered with the corpses of companies or cameras that tried to compete with Leica with an "optical rangefinder" since 1980. Minolta (gone), Konica (gone), Contax-Japan (gone), the Zeiss-Ikon revival (gone, although the lenses are still made), Cosina Voigtlander Bessa cameras (gone - some new-old stock still available, lenses still made), Epson R-D1 (digital version of a C/V Bessa - gone). And, of course, Canon and Nikon abandoned their own RFs by 1970 or earlier, except for consumer products like the Canonet. They saw the writing on the wall.

 

Basic equation: try to compete with Leica in the RF niche = go out of business, or drop the product before it bankrupts you.

 

Even Leica itself almost went bankrupt in around 2003. Took a big investment from Dr. Kaufmann (in R&D for a digital camera) and replacement of most of the top managers, to pull them out of the nose-dive.

 

Because it is darned expensive to build them for a small market base and not lose money. Which is why Leica charges what it does (and makes enough profit to survive and pay back Dr. Kauffmann's investment (slowly), but not a lot).

Edited by adan
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

When the TO writes that Fuji's VF is a turn off then he has to know that there is no better one on the market. Fuji is state of the art. And its APS-C sensor is probably as good or very near the FF sensor of othe brands incl. Leica.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the TO writes that Fuji's VF is a turn off then he has to know that there is no better one on the market. Fuji is state of the art. And its APS-C sensor is probably as good or very near the FF sensor of othe brands incl. Leica.

 

I know Fuji-X very well, left them tow years ago ...

 

Beside missing a FF Sensor, Fuji doesn't have a Rangefinder!

So for me a Fuji or any other DSLM will never be an alternative to the M10.

The thread title is a bit stupid, as there is actually no other digital FF RF camera available.

Should be better: Is there an alternative to the Leica SL?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd venture that most photographers come to Leica late, after much experience with SLR/DSLR's.  And although earlier SLR's - like that iconic Canon AE-1 (http://jeffreyhughes.net/wordpress/2016/05/06/an-echo-from-across-the-years/) - seem much closer in look and feel, the simple fact is that Leica rangefinders have always been different.  Not everyone gets them.  But for those who do, the differences are profound.  If you are susceptible to their magic - they provide a bright, clear window to the world, vice the periscope that nearly all other cameras give you - they will rend asunder your photographic imaginings.

 

People joke about the Kool-aid.  But it's true.  There is an ethos unique to Leica M's.  And once you've tasted it, it's hard to go back again.

 

As to why there's not a competitor at half the price?  It's a very small market and building what Leica has - a modern digital camera which looks, feels, and behaves exactly like its film counterparts going back half a century - is both expensive and exceedingly difficult.  Even Leica struggled through several iterations before they got it right.  Some might argue that the M10 is the first digital M that fully gets back to those august roots.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know Fuji-X very well, left them tow years ago ...

 

Beside missing a FF Sensor, Fuji doesn't have a Rangefinder!

So for me a Fuji or any other DSLM will never be an alternative to the M10.

The thread title is a bit stupid, as there is actually no other digital FF RF camera available.

Should be better: Is there an alternative to the Leica SL?

Take a look at the Hasselblad X1D. To me I feel like I have the best of the M10 and the SL for what I do. And the IQ will leave your mouth wide open.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at the Hasselblad X1D. To me I feel like I have the best of the M10 and the SL for what I do. And the IQ will leave your mouth wide open.

 

Yeah, that's a good point!

My overall thinking since month goes direction "Das Wesentliche" and I still have several M/LTM Lenses.

AND finally the really "sympa" X1D doesn't have a RF.

My final decision was indeed between the X1D and the M10.

I ordered the last one 3 weeks ago ... :wub:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have and use an X-PRO2 and an M10.  I love them both.  In my opinion, the M10 is very much the classic, SLOW, DELIBERATE photography tool.  The X-PRO2 is a "modern" digital tool that lends itself to a diverse range of photographic assignments with relatively fast autofocus, both a digital or optical viewfinder, and "speed" of operation similar to other contemporary digital cameras (no need to remove the bottom plate to get to the dual cards slots or battery), etc.  

.........................................................

I keep seeing such comments as the one I have bolded, and each time I am baffled. I have no idea how those Leica photographers of the past who made its name worked, but I guess in most cases it was fast - street photography, journalism, documentary.

What has happened to slow things up since then? Is the M10 slower than my M240 ( ;))? Or perhaps the people using the Leica M have got slower and more deliberate?

From my own experience, using the M is about speed and responsiveness: see the image, camera to the eye and focus almost as one (exposure usually preset in the right ballpark), press the shutter, and get the shot with no delay.

Of course you can use it as a slow and deliberate photography tool as well - YMMV!

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want anything close to the M10 in terms of image quality, forget getting a rangefinder. You'll be disappointed in the IQ. That goes for the M240 and its various iterations as well. The 240 is nice, but the M10 runs circles around it in every way that counts.

 

I would stick with a full frame camera, which eliminates Fuji. I would also avoid a DSLR dinosaur from either Canon or Nikon. The Leica SL retails for more than M10, so that's out. 

 

That leaves Sony, which IMO would be a good choice for a number of reasons. The A7rII in particular is worth serious consideration. It has better dynamic range and much higher resolution than the M10 and you can pick one up for less than half the price. And it weighs less than the M10. You can also adapt a wide range of lenses with non-Sony mounts to it, including Leica M lenses and get great results. Add the fact that the A7rII has in-body anti-shake and you have a camera that's hard to beat for the price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that "runs rings around" contains a liberal dose of hyperbole. Yes, the M10 is the most sophisticated digital M built to date, but more from evolution of important aspects of the camera than a quantum leap in any department; the sensor is marginally improved, the viewfinder is better, especially for those who use spectacles, there are some other tweaks, it is slimmer. Actually the results from the M have improved incrementally from the M9, which tells us more about the high level of imagery that Leica has been aiming for from the M8 onwards thsn anything else.

If I were to buy an M camera now for stills photography it would be the M10. As an M240 owner the reasons for upgrade would be size and EVF, little else. -And possibly the better eye relief of the viewfinder if one shoots with glasses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep seeing such comments as the one I have bolded, and each time I am baffled. I have no idea how those Leica photographers of the past who made its name worked, but I guess in most cases it was fast - street photography, journalism, documentary.

What has happened to slow things up since then? Is the M10 slower than my M240 ( ;))? Or perhaps the people using the Leica M have got slower and more deliberate?

From my own experience, using the M is about speed and responsiveness: see the image, camera to the eye and focus almost as one (exposure usually preset in the right ballpark), press the shutter, and get the shot with no delay.

Of course you can use it as a slow and deliberate photography tool as well - YMMV!

I couldn't agree more. The whole point about a rangefinder camera is being part of the action, working from the inside out, whilst other systems are looking inside through a window.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want anything close to the M10 in terms of image quality, forget getting a rangefinder. You'll be disappointed in the IQ. That goes for the M240 and its various iterations as well. The 240 is nice, but the M10 runs circles around it in every way that counts.

 

I would stick with a full frame camera, which eliminates Fuji. I would also avoid a DSLR dinosaur from either Canon or Nikon. The Leica SL retails for more than M10, so that's out. 

 

That leaves Sony, which IMO would be a good choice for a number of reasons. The A7rII in particular is worth serious consideration. It has better dynamic range and much higher resolution than the M10 and you can pick one up for less than half the price. And it weighs less than the M10. You can also adapt a wide range of lenses with non-Sony mounts to it, including Leica M lenses and get great results. Add the fact that the A7rII has in-body anti-shake and you have a camera that's hard to beat for the price.

 

I have the Sony a7rII and it is a nice camera in many ways, but I think you exaggerate its advantages over the M10. The Sony has a bit more dynamic range than the M10, but only at some ISOs--from ISO 200 to 600 (some pretty commonly used ISOs) they have basically identical dynamic range and the advantage for the Sony is not that large at other ISOs. The resolution advantage of the Sony is there, but I wouldn't call it much higher. Keep in mind you generally need to double the resolution to have really noticeable affects and the Sony is getting close to that but isn't quite there. In my view if you print A3 or smaller you will be hard pressed to see any advantage to the resolution increase of the Sony, but you can start to see it at larger prints. People should also be cautious about adapting Leica M lenses to the Sony. Some work quite well (e.g., 90 cron AA), but others (e.g., 50 lux Asph and 35 cron Asph) don't work very well on the Sony, and there are basically zero adapted lenses that work on the Sony and wouldn't work on the M10 or M240. Also the difference in weight between the Sony A7rII and the M10 is 25g and the M10 is smaller physically, so the argument that the Sony have less weight while technically true is not very meaningful. 

The big difference between the M10 and the Sony A7rII--even bigger than the difference in the sensors which is there but not all that big, IMO--is that the M10 has a rangefinder focussing mechanism and the Sony does not. Yes, you can focus manual glass with the EVF, but it is a very different process than using the rangefinder and if you like the rangefinder--which, full disclosure, I do--then the Sony won't be a great alternative. That is why I have ordered the M10 even though the Sony has a better sensor. So if you want rangefinder focussing then an m240 or even M9 is a much better alternative than the Sony, but if you don't care about the rangefinder or if you even prefer an EVF then the Sony is a very good choice. Just be careful which M lenses you use with it as quite a few are compromised on that camera.

Edited by Steve Spencer
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Sony a7rII and it is a nice camera in many ways, but I think you exaggerate its advantages over the M10. The Sony has a bit more dynamic range than the M10, but only at some ISOs--from ISO 200 to 600 (some pretty commonly used ISOs) they have basically identical dynamic range and the advantage for the Sony is not that large at other ISOs. The resolution advantage of the Sony is there, but I wouldn't call it much higher. Keep in mind you generally need to double the resolution to have really noticeable affects and the Sony is getting close to that but isn't quite there. In my view if you print A3 or smaller you will be hard pressed to see any advantage to the resolution increase of the Sony, but you can start to see it at larger prints. People should also be cautious about adapting Leica M lenses to the Sony. Some work quite well (e.g., 90 cron AA), but others (e.g., 50 lux Asph and 35 cron Asph) don't work very well on the Sony, and there are basically zero adapted lenses that work on the Sony and wouldn't work on the M10 or M240. Also the difference in weight between the Sony A7rII and the M10 is 25g and the M10 is smaller physically, so the argument that the Sony have less weight while technically true is not very meaningful. 

The big difference between the M10 and the Sony A7rII--even bigger than the difference in the sensors which is there but not all that big, IMO--is that the M10 has a rangefinder focussing mechanism and the Sony does not. Yes, you can focus manual glass with the EVF, but it is a very different process than using the rangefinder and if you like the rangefinder--which, full disclosure, I do--then the Sony won't be a great alternative. That is why I have ordered the M10 even though the Sony has a better sensor. So if you want rangefinder focussing then an m240 or even M9 is a much better alternative than the Sony, but if you don't care about the rangefinder or if you even prefer an EVF then the Sony is a very good choice. Just be careful which M lenses you use with it as quite a few are compromised on that camera.

 

You can crop 40% off a shot from the A7rII and still have a slightly higher resolution image than an uncropped shot from the M10. I would call that much higher resolution. As for dynamic range, the A7rII has between 0.5 and 1 EV more dynamic range than the M10 at ISO 50 - 160. It's a dead heat between the two from ISO 200 - 500. Above ISO 500 the Sony has more dynamic range than the M10 all the way up to ISO 25600 and beyond. It's not a big difference (I didn't say it was) but it is noticeable. My point is not that the M10 is in any way a bad camera. Far from it. I've had one on backorder from Adorama since Jan. 19th. I'm merely saying the Sony is a viable alternative for someone looking for a great camera for less money than the M10.

 

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Edited by NDOC
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuji does not make digital rangefinders so far so there is no real competition besides Leica. I for one do regret the failure of the Epson R-D1 but i still use mine with pleasure and a digital version of the Zeiss Ikon would be welcome, at least by me. Now neither Zeiss nor Cosina seem to be interested in such a body and when i see how easily some of us are mistaking EVIL for RF cameras  (no disrespect folks) i suspect there is no significant market for rangefinders besides Leica.

Edited by lct
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree. I think it s a case of Leica being the last man standing in the RF world for quite a while now. Trying to muscle in on this niche would be simply too expensive and probably impossible at a competing price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can crop 40% off a shot from the A7rII and still have a slightly higher resolution image than an uncropped shot from the M10. I would call that much higher resolution. As for dynamic range, the A7rII has between 0.5 and 1 EV more dynamic range than the M10 at ISO 50 - 160. It's a dead heat between the two from ISO 200 - 500. Above ISO 500 the Sony has more dynamic range than the M10 all the way up to ISO 25600 and beyond. It's not a big difference (I didn't say it was) but it is noticeable. My point is not that the M10 is in any way a bad camera. Far from it. I've had one on backorder from Adorama since Jan. 19th. I'm merely saying the Sony is a viable alternative for someone looking for a great camera for less money than the M10.

 

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

 

That is correct except you have to realize what cropping by 40% means. That is cropping a side by 25% or so. The long side of the A7rII is just under 8000 pixels and the resolution of the long side of the M10 is just under 6000 pixels, so you most certainly cannot crop the side by 40%, close to 25% yes but nowhere near 40% and when we are talking about making prints the difference between that long side being about 8000 pixels and 6000 pixels is not that large. Also keep in mind if you do crop the A7rII you totally loose any advantage that it has in dynamic range and noise (dynamic range is reduced and noise increases when you crop). So a good way to think about it is that the A7r II lets you crop to the size of the M10 without any penalties, and also allows you to go bigger if that is useful. The big question that photographers have to ask themselves is whether it is useful for them to go bigger in that way. Do they wish often enough for a bigger file to want such files? If that is important, then yes the increased resolution is an important consideration. If it isn't then the increased resolution, IMO, should not be seen as an important consideration.

The question of whether it is a viable alternative, in my view, is still how one feels about using a rangefinder. Focussing with an EVF is very different that focussing with a rangefinder If one wants a rangefinder for the focussing method, then the Sony won't come close to creating that experience.

Edited by Steve Spencer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two points:

 

(1) I had my gear nicked as well, and the insurance proceeds got me an M9 and 35 Summicron. Couldn't be happier. How far will your payout go?

 

(2) if it's the M10 you love, and you really can't afford it, then buy into the system, and wait. You will afford it one day. Get an M8.2 or M9P, and a good secondhand lens in your favoured focal length, then buy-sell-trade your way into your preferred focal lengths from the middle. Start with 28 or 35 or 50 and see how you go. If you can afford an M9, then you get the benefit of full frame and Leica's promise it will replace the sensor if it corrodes in the next 10 years or so.

 

Once you have your first M (even film - they are fantastic), you're set. If wide is what you love, then build up 21-28-50, or at the longer end, go 28-50-90. There will come a time when you can afford to add an M10.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the TO writes that Fuji's VF is a turn off then he has to know that there is no better one on the market. Fuji is state of the art. And its APS-C sensor is probably as good or very near the FF sensor of othe brands incl. Leica.

 

Do you have a link to that please? I'm curious what he said about the XP2 (I know he recently got one)

 

Not that I'm doubting or disputing either the comment or the validity of it (I thought the M240 had a nicer look to its OVF than my XP2 when I tried one)

 

I, for one, was quite surprised that he picked up a XP2 !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...