Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Country
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I entirely agree and have found this discussion really helpful and for me anyway, it has filled what was, for me, a gap in the excellent reviews from some experienced reviewers on this camera.
  2. Wasting time? This is a discussion forum and many people are discussing this topic, you included. You might want to ask yourself why Leica bothered to include stabilisation in the SL etc. Might it be because there was room in those camera bodies and Leica recognise it is a useful tool for photographers to have if they want it? That is my point and Leica appear to have taken the decision, in the M10R and now even more so in the M11, to put high res sensors in before they are able to solve the stabiliser problem in an M body. To me that matters but to you, and many other users and reviewers , it appears to be of no interest.
  3. Presumably everyone who buys the M11 will want to use it at full resolution (60MP) at least some of the time. And they will do so because they want the best possible detail in their image. So they will not want the image downgraded by camera shake. After all what is the point of a high resolution photo which isn’t sharp? So, given that Leica, contrary to every other high resolution 35mm camera manufacturer in the current market, has chosen to omit putting a stabilised sensor in the camera, how can this problem be avoided? Well, you can downgrade the resolution as Leica has helpfully enabled you to do. But then there is no high res image anymore. You can raise the ISO until it is so high that the shutter speed is very fast. But then the image is downgraded. You can stop using fast or longer lenses. But that is one of the strengths and great pleasures of the M camera. You can buy a sturdy tripod. That will solve the problem. Use the M11 on a good tripod. But then the whole idea of the M camera, fast and compact, rather goes out of the window. So is the M11 a flawed concept in its current form? Do all the owners of Sony, Nikon, Cannon etc high res 35 m cameras all go round with image stabilisation turned off? No. Why not? Because they need it to get consistently sharp high res images. I suggest so does the M11. Surprisingly, at least to me, two of leading reviews out so far, Jono Slack and Sean Reid, do not even mention this topic.
  4. Very interesting review. The lack of a stabilised sensor is not mentioned in it. Presumably that it because you do not think it is an issue worth raising as I assume you had no trouble in using the 60mp sensor without any trace of camera shake. I don't think I would be able to that, so it is a concern to me. I assume Leica left it out because there was no room. Surely it would be an upgrade if they could have fitted it. Otherwise why is it fitted to the Sl etc? I wonder what you think?
  5. I don't think Leica have any problem going back to earlier design features if they were good ones. After all that is what they have done with significant features on the M10. And a separate device for exact focusing is what I believe Leica would wish to avoid if possible because it is less convenient and detracts from the simplicity of the camera ethos. That is why the clip on visoflex is something of a compromise, although I accept it is very useful for exact framing as well as focus. My point is that the integrated solution on the earlier cameras works very well and it gives the benefit of precise rangefinder focusing without the compromise of add on extras. The integrated viewfinder of the M10 is obviously excellent and a pleasure to use, but, it has to be accepted that it is not adequate for longer lenses (or fast ones wide open) which is why Leica introduced the screw on magnifier and the visoflex in the first place.
  6. Together with the M10 I use a Leica IIIG. That camera has the two viewfinder windows alongside each other, the second window giving a clear, large, magnified view of the rangefinder patch for use when critical focusing is essential. It is very quick and very good. I wonder if it will be possible for Leica to modify the M10’s successor to incorporate a similar device? I realise the modern rangefinder is very complex already but maybe the technology is there now to deal with such a modification? I also realise that you can buy a magnifier (4x?) which screws into the eyepiece to magnify the focusing patch for critical focus with longer lenses, but, in my opinion having briefly tried one, it is reduces contrast considerably and is cumbersome in that you have to carry it with you and then screw it on and off every time you need it. The IIIG solution is quick, unobtrusive and very effective. I think such a development, if it could be done, would be a huge help in focusing 75mm lenses and above and would fully preserve the rangefinder ethos of the M camera. If there is no room for a second viewfinder window, and I expect there is not, then a switch by the existing viewfinder to bring down the magnifier would be great, if it is possible.
  7. I have an M10. I bought it because of its simplicity. But I want to get the best possible images out of it. There is surely no doubt that a good IBS system reduces camera shake and provides better images. Have Leica not installed this in their SL2 with its 40+MP? If in that, then why not in the M10R with its 41MP? I know the purist argument and its easy to say, if you want it then buy another sort of camera. But I don’t want another camera. I want the simplicity of Leica. IBS does not attract from that simplicity in any way. It just produces a sharper more detailed (less micro blurred) image. Just like the 41MP sensor of the M10R is intended to do. It is needed and it is time the M10 range had it. If the purist doesn’t like it all they have to do is not enable it in the menu. You don’t have to use live view on the M10, but you can if you want to be sure of pin sharp focus in a difficult situatiion. Well done Leica for giving us that!
  8. Thank you. Thats good to hear and is probably due mainly to the build and balance of the camera. I would be very interested though to hear in the future what experiences people shooting E.G. the summicron 90mm APO have with this.
  9. What about camera shake at this resolution? Presumably it was impossible to fit stabilisation into the camera body or it would have been too expensive?
  10. Thank you very much for those replies. That thread is very helpful and I should of course have checked the manual before doing my post. Sorry. What puzzles me is that Leica obviously know of the overexposure tendency on the M10 and would realise this is not a good thing. Why don't they correct it in a firmware update? Surely it is just a case of tweaking the relevant algorithm or is it much more complex than that? Manual metering negates the simplicity of use that aperture priority provides and if I was going to do that I think I might invest in a decent hand held light meter to get a really good reading. It is after all what Don McCullen always does and his results certainly justify it. Lburn
  11. I believe that on the M10, of the three metering modes, spot metering mode is only available whilst using live view because the camera needs to read directly off the sensor. But what happens when you switch out of live view and carry on taking photos straight away using the range finder? What metering mode has the camera now defaulted to? Centre weighted or average? It would be very useful to know and I wondered if anyone had the answer. Lburn
  12. Does anyone know why it is not possible to spot meter on the Leica M10 unless you are using live view? I believe it is well known that the M10 tends to clip highlights (it certainly does in my experience) and accurate metering using the "expose to the right" technique is the best way, in my opinion, to control this. I have my exposure compensation routinely set to minus 1/3rd but this is nowhere near enough to deal with high contract situations. I realise that I could dial in much more underexposure in those situations but it would be much more convenient and quicker just to be able to take a meter reading off the highlight part of the image as with the spot metering facility. I have taken same scene comparison shots with a good camera which does have spot metering and with the M10 set to centre weighted and the results are completely blown highlights on the M10. Could a firmware update introduce spot metering without needing to be in live view? I think it would be really useful.
  13. Thank you for those thoughts. I certainly can't pretend to be able to take a completely shake free image handheld at a slow shutter speed (15th and below) and really admire those who can. I can sometimes get close but some degree of shake is there. I don't think I am alone in this. As I want to get the best out of Leica equipment, in body stabilisation would seem a logical way to go. But the key part of my thread is whether Leica have concluded that lack of stabilisation is now a limiting factor on the megapixel size they can go to -hence 24MP and not 36MP. If so, I think that would be a pity because surely the lenses are well up to resolving the greater detail recorded by a 36MP sensor? I wonder how many users could shoot pin sharp at slow speeds on a 36 sensor with no support and no stabilisation?? Lburn
  14. Would the Leica M type 240 be a better photographic tool if Leica had developed it to include sensor stabilisation? Is that not one of the main reasons Leica did not increase the megapixels in the M10 to, for example, 36MP (to the disappointment I suspect of many would be upgraders). I wonder this because it is hard to think of a mainstream serious amateur or professional camera on the market today which does NOT have good image stabilisation built in. It is regarded as an essential component presumably because, for many people, it is extremely difficult to take a genuinely pin sharp image on a large sensor without it. I know many Leica photographers will not agree but then why is stabilisation such a key selling point? If Leica could do this I for one would not feel that it detracted from the rangefinder experience. You still have to focus but an in focus image would not be marred by camera shake, however slight. Maybe it is impossible for Leica to incorporate it. Lburn
  15. I am puzzled by the M10. Leica market it as getting closer to the analogue M's in terms of size and handling. "Simplicity" is the key. Hence the slimmer body and "better" viewfinder, and of course the added "simplicity" of no video capability. But I wonder how many photographers who love to use a rangefinder camera actually want to be able to shoot at 5 frames per second and found 2 frames per second far too slow? Was it actually unpleasant to hold an M type 240? How many really found the ability to shoot reasonable quality video if you wanted to, a nuisance or a distraction? I use it infrequently but there are times when I am very glad it is there. From my experience with my type 240 which I have used regularly for the last three years, none of these things has been the slightest problem. But then I am not a fashion, sports or high speed wild life photographer. Maybe Leica think the M10 is for them? If so, is a rangefinder the best means of focusing? Isn't that market covered many times over with DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras with much better focusing than the M10 with EVF can ever hope to provide and with very high quality image output? For the rangefinder photographer who likes to compose and think before pressing the shutter, the M10 seems to be to be a wrong turn. I have a feeling that Leica sacrificed video simply, or at least mainly, to enable them to make the thinner body (it is of course still taller than the analogue ones). They didn't reduce weight noticeably. And I wonder if they put in the 5 frames per second just because they could do it with the new shutter. For me there is no temptation to change model and I suspect Leica could have kept their nerve and upgraded the Type 240 to the new viewfinder, shutter and EVF were it not for the pressures of marketing and the need to be seen to be doing something new as in "NEW M" that prevented this. Pity. Lburn
  • Create New...