What's so good about M10?

[Olsen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What so good about M10 that it can motivate me to buy it?  Without video capability.

​Let me hear from users with experience with both M (240) and M10.  How do they compare?

 

[R3D-D0T]

Does the red dot not tell you enough?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[LeicaFFM]

Not again...

[Dirk Mandeville]

Not again...

Really! Olsen, was one thread complaining about lack of video in the M10 not enough? So you had to start another one?

[Yarosuav]

What so good about M10 that it can motivate me to buy it?  Without video capability.

 

​Let me hear from users with experience with both M (240) and M10.  How do they compare?

 

The name!  "M10" just sounds good...

 

"M240" was always lame...

[pop]

The name!  "M10" just sounds good...

 

"M240" was always lame...

"M240" was invented by people who didn't like "M" which sounded very essential.

[olgierdc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M240 is an early demo version of M10.

[arthury]

Is the recovery from a image capture significantly faster than the M240?

When I press the shutter of the M240, it takes, at least, 2 seconds before it recovers back to state where I can take another picture from the EVF.

What's the recovery time for the M10?

Anyone?

[ramarren]

What so good about M10 that it can motivate me to buy it?  Without video capability.

 

The new viewfinder. And if you can't see the difference, just stick with your current M, whatever it is.

[chris_tribble]

• ISO dial (brilliant!)
• Improved RF
• Large field of view in OVF
• Better weather proofing
• An EVF which is a pleasure to use (with minimal delay)!
• 100 ISO base
• Outstandingly good high ISO at 6400 (not really tested above this as I've not needed to)...
• Improved ergonomics
• Overall more responsive
• Black chrome
• Simplified buttons (and easier to use with gloves on)
• New menu system

 

That'll do...

Edited April 13, 2017 by chris_tribble

[adan]

You know - I had a list started of the things I didn't like about the M240 (never owned one, with good reasons), that the M10 fixes...and then realized, what is the point?

 

I don't actually give a fig what camera someone else is "motivated to buy." Life is too short, and there are many, many more important things to spend time on....

[Guest]

If you can't explain to yourself, there is no reason for you to buy the M10.

[Guest]

What so good about M10 that it can motivate me to buy it?  Without video capability.

 

​Let me hear from users with experience with both M (240) and M10.  How do they compare?

 

I think you answered your own question! If you care about video then no it would be a crap choice, simple as that. If like me you don't give a monkey about video, then it is a seriously cool camera. It is as manual or automatice as you wish it to be, apart from the manual focussing of course of M lenses. I skipped all M's after M6 and went on a voyage of discovery, Sony etc, I had the SL (a very fine camera too, albeit in my hands and to my feel too heavy). I now have the M10 and don't regret it being my only camera.

[Guest]

 

• ISO dial (brilliant!)
• Improved RF
• Large field of view in OVF
• Better weather proofing
• An EVF which is a pleasure to use (with minimal delay)!
• 100 ISO base
• Outstandingly good high ISO at 6400 (not really tested above this as I've not needed to)...
• Improved ergonomics
• Overall more responsive
• Black chrome
• Simplified buttons (and easier to use with gloves on)
• New menu system

 

That'll do...

 

+ 1 to most of that, I haven't used the Viewfinder yet, quite happy with the RF.  Plus for video I would have my iPhone but as video done by me leaves me bored, I would rather just forget it! One of the plus points of the M10 is that it cuts out what for me is superflous to my needs. So a perfect buy, to others where video is important it is poison.

[rwchisholm]

Coming from the M9, the M10 is a wonderful upgrade! I never tried the 240, as I love the CCD on the M9, but the M9 is a wonky camera - small buffer, locks up every time I shoot, slow shutter response time, etc. plus mine has the sensor corrosion and needs a trip home to get a new one.

 

So far I am very impressed with the images from the M10. And the handling is a joy! If you enjoy rangefinder photography for the experience then you'll love it. I shoot everything manually, turn off the auto playback and review shots only when I think light is changing. I use single shot mode only. Simple and deliberate shooting. Pure fun.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[johnbuckley]

I'd add one thing to Chris's very good list: I perceive (may be wrong, but I don't think so) that the color rendition of the M10 is a little less hot than the M240. It's possible, also, that the auto white balance is better (those two things could be related.) We have all focused on advantages offered by the M10 that relate to the physical camera -- size, ISO dial, etc. From the first time I saw images download to Lightroom, it seemed to my eye that the colors were more natural. I think I described it at the time as an upgrade similar to the M8-M9, where the images seemed a little darker, the color a little flatter, but in both cases better.

[stephan54]

I like the price  

[pico]

[...] I don't actually give a fig what camera someone else is "motivated to buy." Life is too short, and there are many, many more important things to spend time on....

 

Agreed. The 'convince me to buy...' posts are largely people looking for co-conspirators, cohorts in order to relieve their insecurity, or contrive excuses to submit to their significant others (which must be a sucky life). They might also be scope-dopes dreaming at work.

 

For people just starting out in digital RF cameras, the M10 is a good starting point. So is a well maintained M9. (I cannot speak of the M8 because I never owned one.)

 

If it were possible to buy anything, I would spend my fortune to be well, to walk easily, to climb a steep grade, to work.

Edited April 13, 2017 by pico

[Wayne]

The size reduction is enough to keep the M10 on my mind. I was impressed with the comparison I was able to do with M7. Another thing that intrigues me about the camera is the inclusion of capacity for use of EVF; I have a drawer full of old Pentax M42 glass that I would love to be able to take along when I am packing a single M body. I do not believe I have ever used the video capability of any digital camera I have owned. It just never comes to mind while I am out taking photos. I suppose the only real downside to M10, at least as far as I am concerned, is the "what next" factor. It suggests Leica is serious about this size reduction thing. M10 makes me think an M-D version is a very real possibility. An M-D10, with accommodation for EVF, would be the end of my interest in follow-up models of digital M cameras. I would have to have it. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

OK - I got over my grump. Chris Tribble's list above is exhaustive, but for me the M10's key advantages over the M(240) - reasons I did not buy the 240 - are:

 

1. Better color rendition - tamer primary reds, less red/magenta contamination of deep or subtle greens (foliage, architecture) and neutrals

2. Better high ISO without banding (3200 > 10000, with 12500 being usually but not always clean as well)

3. ISO dial (giving the advantage of no constant distracting ISO reminders in the viewfinder)

 

Additionally

 

4. Larger, higher-magnification optical viewfinder for more precise RF focusing (a side effect of the thinner body)

 

2 and 4 meaning I can now use my 135 TE f/4 more reliably for indoor, low-light documentary shooting.