Jump to content

Leica M 10


rijve044

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not misguided for me, I agree that a lot of the extra weight of the M240 is due to the battery but the extra girth of all the digital M cameras is a negative factor, again, for me, I know that many like the extra width. I love the size of Leica M film cameras and if the M10 is the same or similar size I may not be able to resist.

 

I agree with you on the difference between a film body and a digital M. I was only referring to the discussions about the size of the M240 vs the M9.

Link to post
Share on other sites

x
  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

As it stands, the 'M10' looks pretty well like the M240 i was expecting four years ago. It would interest me if it could free me from using both an RF and a TTL camera but it is still far from my A7s mod DR wise i suspect and i doubt that it can work 100% in silent mode as does the latter. I am willing to reconsider if i'm wrong of course and i remain open to good surprises anyway but i won't hold my breath for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As it stands, the 'M10' looks pretty well like the M240 i was expecting four years ago. It would interest me if it could free me from using both an RF and a TTL camera but it is still far from my A7s mod DR wise i suspect and i doubt that it can work 100% in silent mode as does the latter. I am willing to reconsider if i'm wrong of course and i remain open to good surprises anyway but i won't hold my breath for now.

I have the feeling that you are right better to keep on breathing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edward, your wife is definitely splendid . . . But would she really notice the sudden arrival of a new ISO knob?

I hope not - mine certainly won't!

Thank you on behalf of my wife, Jono :)

 

You would be surprised how she can pick up any slight differences in the cameras' exteriors. She has no idea about the inner workings but even a different paint shade is easily spotted :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think it's a 36MP CCD, no EVF, no live view, going back to basics of what the M was with a more manageable size and superior low light performance.

 

But a compromise could be a 36MP CMOS, newer external EVF with appropriate connectors, live view, still harking back to what the M was with a more manageable size and superior low light performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the substantial dispute in this respect concern the question of whether the iso setting on a digital camera is in fact a shooting parameter?

Yes, fair point.

My experience has been that the M240's sensor is not ISO invariant: increasing ISO in camera provides a better result than pushing the same amount in post.

So I do tend to use ISO in variable light conditions.

If it were ISO invariant, the ISO dial would be less useful.

The M10 will have a different sensor, so who outside of Leica knows how important ISO control in camera will be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I  agree that the differences between the M and SL/Q sensors are too small to be called a serious upgrade. Let's hope the surprise is in that department. Some wizardry in the VF/RF would be appreciated as well.

Jaap - I have spent a lot of time over the past six months going back and forth among the SL, Mono-246, and MP-240. I think there is a very noticeable upgrade in the sensor from the Ms to the SL. The SL sensor output is brighter, in a good way. So the fact that this M is reputed to have the SL sensor is very encouraging to me.

 

Speaking of the SL, I've configured it so I have to use one of the buttons to call up ISO, but can adjust exposure compensation while looking through the EVF. I find it really helpful to do that, and so while I appreciate the ISO dial, I really hope there is some way of being able to visualize, through the new EVF, changes in exposure compensation. As someone who has shot exclusively with Ms for more than 15 years until getting the SL earlier this year, that option proved a revelation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I like the idea of an ISO knob, cutting off the corner and sticking a k on there see,s rather inelegant design. It could be moved in. Or,almwear if the detente isn't firm. I suppose it is hardening back to the rewind lever, but that was angled and better integrated in the design. I do like the alleged back buttons as they are more ergonomic.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to my experience the SL is better by half a stop at high ISO but the M240 is better at medium ISO.

 

 

The dxo comparison actually shows that the Q and SL have 1.5 to 2 stops higher dynamic range at ISO 3200 than the M (raw files, not jpeg) !

 

In my experience, the SL shows less noise than the M at higher ISO by about one stop. But this is not the whole story:

The SL files can be pushed further than the M files by approx. two stops at higher ISO. The M files are prone to banding, the SL files are not (since Firmware Update 2.0 or so).

With the M, I try to stay at ISO 1600 max. in order to have some room in post.

With the SL, I comfortably shoot at ISO 6400.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't get the handwringing over the ISO dial when there are countless threads gushing about the aesthetic beauty of the film MP, M2, M3 and, indeed, praising the look of that VERY EXACT round knurled design over the M4 M6 crank that adds a slanted surface on the corner.

 

But put the same thing on a digital body and it's suddenly hideous? To me that dial is a lovely homage to the classic M rangefinder.

 

If I were a Leica industrial designer I would rip my hair out trying to please everyone on this forum.  :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something tells me that these leaks are very deliberate in what they reveal. Keep the buzz going, right?

 

Absolutely.

People don't magically get hold of pre-release cameras to publish as they see fit.

It's all marketing, and well done too.

Who's going to be paying attention on 18 January?  Everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to my experience the SL is better by half a stop at high ISO but the M240 is better at medium ISO.

But who cares?? Sorry Edward, do we want everything to look like it's HDR forced. 

Not me...I'll pull the shadows a bit, if necessary and control the bright-bits in camera.

 

I'm just so over DR discussions. 

 

all best, I mean no disrespect, cheers..

Link to post
Share on other sites

But who cares?? Sorry Edward, do we want everything to look like it's HDR forced. 

Not me...I'll pull the shadows a bit, if necessary and control the bright-bits in camera.

 

I'm just so over DR discussions. 

 

all best, I mean no disrespect, cheers..

 

who cares ? everybody !

If you get extra stops it doesn't look at all like HDR, you just get extra stops  and more possibilities

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...