Jump to content

Played with the m10 at the Leica store today


drdannn

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Great camera. Iso dial is fancy but totally unnecessary. It does take 2 fingers to pull it up. For me it is easier on the 240 to touch the button and spin the wheel.  ISO capability is fantastic. 12,500 is great and 25,000 is very usable. I did not test over that.  The camera is thinner but only by a few millimeters. There is no perceivable weight difference from the m240. It is only 10 or 15 grams. The optional factory thumb grip does not fit well into the flash shoe. It falls out easily. I would wait and see if "Thumbs Up" is going to make a thumb grip. Otherwise I would not know how to make the factory accessory stay put. The viewfinder is a bit better, slightly bigger, but the rangefinder "patch" is exactly the same size as the m240, so do not think you are going to get a bigger patch. The battery does not last long and it would be necessary to have more than one. The bottom plate is a tight squeeze and some difficulty getting it back on. Image below shot at iso 25000, shutter 1000th, 50mm f2.0, dng saved as jpeg with no editing or profile whatsoever.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by drdannn
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The ISO dial is designed to be lifted by 2 fingers, not one. It can be left in the up position while shooting though, which is how I use it.

25000 ISO may look good on web, but not usable for printing or real use. I'd suggest staying at 10,000 or less.

Did you use it long enough to really judge the battery?

 

Shame about the thumb grip, but I would rather support Match Technical...his is coming soon and has a screw to tighten it in place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Edited by digitalfx
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The ISO dial is designed to be lifted by 2 fingers, not one. It can be left in the up position while shooting though, which is how I use it.

 

25000 ISO may look good on web, but not usable for printing or real use. I'd suggest staying at 10,000 or less.

 

Did you use it long enough to really judge the battery?

 

Shame about the thumb grip, but I would rather support Match Technical...his is coming soon and has a screw to tighten it in place.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I used it off and on for about an hour while talking to a very nice Leica Ambassador, and a photographer, Craig Semetko, a very nice and talented man. Glad to hear about the Match Technical coming out with a tightening screw Thumbs Up. Tim is a very nice guy and makes a quality product. I would also use the ISO dial in the up position, and yes it is a two finger operation to lift up. I guess it just takes some getting used to.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Dan. Do you wear eyeglasses? I'm curious to see through the new finder.

HI Jim,

I do have eyeglasses with a mild correction. I tried using the glasses and there is a slight difference from the 240. That alone would not cause me to change cameras, but it was a slightly bigger field. I was hoping perhaps that the "focusing patch" would be a tad bigger, but that is not the case. The frame lines seemed to be a slightly different distance from the eye, if that is what they mean by "eye relief". I only noticed it as different. Perhaps over a day of using the camera I would experience a more pleasant eye experience.

Edited by drdannn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Dan. Do you wear eyeglasses? I'm curious to see through the new finder.

HI Jim,

I do have eyeglasses with a mild correction. I tried using the glasses and there is a slight difference from the 240. That alone would not cause me to change cameras, but it was a slightly bigger field. I was hoping perhaps that the "focusing patch" would be a tad bigger, but that is not the case. The frame lines seemed to be a slightly different distance from the eye, if that is what they mean by "eye relief". I only noticed it as different. Perhaps over a day of using the camera I would experience a more pleasant eye experience.

 

The viewfinder is noticeably better in every way for eyeglass wearers.

 

-I can, for instance, see the 28mm framelines. And have slight breathing room on a 35mm. It's not as comfy as a 0.58x finder, I would say its probably halfway between a 0.58 and the previous M240 finder in terms of eye relief.

-The focusing patch is clearly larger. I have found I can reliably focus a 75mm summilux with it, for instance.

 

The biggest way I can confirm this is by shooting the M10 for a day and trying to go back to an M240. It feels like a tiny peephole in comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

The viewfinder is noticeably better in every way for eyeglass wearers.

 

-I can, for instance, see the 28mm framelines. And have slight breathing room on a 35mm. It's not as comfy as a 0.58x finder, I would say its probably halfway between a 0.58 and the previous M240 finder in terms of eye relief.

-The focusing patch is clearly larger. I have found I can reliably focus a 75mm summilux with it, for instance.

 

The biggest way I can confirm this is by shooting the M10 for a day and trying to go back to an M240. It feels like a tiny peephole in comparison.

 

That was not my experience. I compared side by side the M240 and the M10 viewfinder with glasses. In both cases I could see barely to the 35mm framelines. Exactly the same. The image in the M10 finder was larger than that of the M240, and it was easier to focus (the patch has the same apparent size, but with higher magnification it is easier to see what you are focusing on). I felt that the better eye relief simply compensated for the higher magnification. You should check with your own glasses...

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was not my experience. I compared side by side the M240 and the M10 viewfinder with glasses. In both cases I could see barely to the 35mm framelines. Exactly the same. The image in the M10 finder was larger than that of the M240, and it was easier to focus (the patch has the same apparent size, but with higher magnification it is easier to see what you are focusing on). I felt that the better eye relief simply compensated for the higher magnification. You should check with your own glasses...

 

 

I think this will depend on your glasses. I too can barely see the 35mm frame lines on the M10, and cant see the 28mm...but someone earlier told me that he could fully see the 28mm frame lines with his glasses and could even see outside the 28mm for his 24mm lens. I think his name was Superman because I have never been able to see out to 24mm even without glasses :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this will depend on your glasses. I too can barely see the 35mm frame lines on the M10, and cant see the 28mm...but someone earlier told me that he could fully see the 28mm frame lines with his glasses and could even see outside the 28mm for his 24mm lens. I think his name was Superman because I have never been able to see out to 24mm even without glasses :)

 

 

How does the view (for you) compare to M240?

For example, I can see the whole 50mm frame (just barely) on the M240.. I have to look around a lot to see the 35mm frames.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does the view (for you) compare to M240?

For example, I can see the whole 50mm frame (just barely) on the M240.. I have to look around a lot to see the 35mm frames.

If your prescription permits, you should investigate more flexible frames to get closer to the VF. I can see much more with my M240 with specs.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

I compared the rangefinder focus patch without glasses on the 240 and the 10, using the same lens. The focus patch is exactly the same size. I did so studiously by measuring it from ranges of 10 ft. to 50 ft. against an object and recorded in my minds eye where the corners of the patch were against the object on which I was focusing. I do not know how it would look to those who have to wear glasses, but for sure without glasses they are the same size in each camera. I do not know about "eye relief", or how to measure that.

 

I looking at my dng photos of the camera bags ( first post ), I noticed that the sensor has an affinity for yellow. It seems to over saturate or create anything that resembles any shade of yellow, even beige.  Anyone else notice that?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name="drdannn" post="3211592" timestamp="1486974795"

I looking at my dng photos of the camera bags ( first post ), I noticed that the sensor has an affinity for yellow. It seems to over saturate or create anything that resembles any shade of yellow, even beige.  Anyone else notice that?

 

What processing software are you using? I've read Lightroom 6.8 fixes any issues with yellow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I looking at my dng photos of the camera bags ( first post ), I noticed that the sensor has an affinity for yellow. It seems to over saturate or create anything that resembles any shade of yellow, even beige.  Anyone else notice that?

 

 

The dng files will depend on how you process them...sounds like you are using the wrong profile. Discussed at length in this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The focus patch in the M10 is 5% larger. .73 vs .68. magnification. But so is the image so the patch will appear the same relative to the image. Just as my .85 M6 looks relative to the .68 of my M240

 

5% in absolute amounts, but 7.35% relatively bigger (.73 /.68)....I think.

 

Magnification and other VF concepts covered here...     https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-viewfinders/

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The focus patch in the M10 is 5% larger. .73 vs .68. magnification. But so is the image so the patch will appear the same relative to the image. Just as my .85 M6 looks relative to the .68 of my M240

Thank you for the technical info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What processing software are you using? I've read Lightroom 6.8 fixes any issues with yelloI wa

I was just testing the camera itself to see what it produced. So I was not using any profile or corrections in post. The photo I posted was just the dng converted to jpeg. That's it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just testing the camera itself to see what it produced. So I was not using any profile or corrections in post. The photo I posted was just the dng converted to jpeg. That's it.

 

You imported them on your computer, right?  That required software.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
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...