Leica M 10

[imants]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

standard, focus peaking and digital split image

[Advertisement]

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

[Distagon]

The SL is designed to be a 'Live View, all the time' system with 11fps still capture and 4K video capture capability. This implies far more optimization and far far faster sensor to system IO throughput than what the M10 is designed for.

 

Yes, indeed.

However, the key components (mechanical shutter, sensor, image processor), are apparently quite similar between the two cameras.

Though the SL is clearly optimised with a high capacity data bus, we can only make (educated) assumptions about the M10's.

Does the data bus of a camera capable of shooting at 5 fps, capable of a high EVF refresh rate, using similar system components to the SL, really explain the very significant difference in EVF blackout between the two cameras?

Even if we accept that the M10 wasn't optimised for the same EVF performance as the SL, there just seems to be no obvious reason why the blackout should be as long as reported.

I haven't used the camera yet, and it is something that may well not bother me too much, but it seems inconsistent with everything else we know about the M10.

[Lax Jought]

Are there any reviews that compare the sound of M10's shutter with the M240 and M9?  Steve Huff showed it on his video review but it was hard to tell without a direct comparison with the other Ms.

[otto.f]

The M262 was the most silent shutter thus far. It seems that the M10 is a bit noisier because of a higher tone. That's what I infer from youtube recordings from the both

[Lax Jought]

The M262 was the most silent shutter thus far. It seems that the M10 is a bit noisier because of a higher tone. That's what I infer from youtube recordings from the both

 

Thanks otto. I have played with the M262 right next to an M240 previously, and while I can hear a difference in the volume of the sound, I felt that the difference wasn't very big, I could live with the M240 in terms of the shutter.  So in that case I assume that the M10 won't be too far off from either the M262 or the M240, maybe somewhere in between.

[zlatkob]

I did own a Fuji XPro1 once . I really did not get the realistic function of it's optical finder. If I remember correctly it did not offer any sort of focus capability, as for the electronic finder it was just a mimic of the rear screen.

I don't remember but did this camera ever offer any kind of focus aid with M lenses

 

The X-Pro1 was a weak first effort with many flaws.  But Fuji has improved numerous details with each subsequent iteration of their X cameras.  The current X-Pro2 is a better & faster camera than the original.  It offers two focus aids for manual focus lenses.  One is focus peaking when using the EVF, either in the standard or enlarged view.  The other is a small (but magnified) ERF window in the bottom right of the OVF, and that ERF window can be made to show focus peaking too.  It works, though it's a bit less elegant than an optical rangefinder with a center patch.  The Fuji compromise, however, is that the viewfinder is rather small.

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks otto. I have played with the M262 right next to an M240 previously, and while I can hear a difference in the volume of the sound, I felt that the difference wasn't very big, I could live with the M240 in terms of the shutter.  So in that case I assume that the M10 won't be too far off from either the M262 or the M240, maybe somewhere in between.

Think so too

[Mr.Q]

Using the OVF part of the X-Pro 2 sucks. The lenses are focus-by-wire so acquiring fast focus manually is just a wild guess work. It's far from being intuitive. The focus patch in the bottom right is distracting. You've got to frame, then look at the focus patch, and then frame again. It's nothing like the focus patch on a rangefinder. Most people quickly realize how gimmicky it is and end up using the camera with autofocus + EVF.

[zlatkob]

Using the OVF part of the X-Pro 2 sucks. The lenses are focus-by-wire so acquiring fast focus manually is just a wild guess work. It's far from being intuitive. The focus patch in the bottom right is distracting. You've got to frame, then look at the focus patch, and then frame again. It's nothing like the focus patch on a rangefinder. Most people quickly realize how gimmicky it is and end up using the camera with autofocus + EVF.

 

About the focus by wire ... that depends on the lens.  With the 23mm f/1.4 the focus by wire works very well and feels intuitive.  With focus peaking, it's actually super-easy to focus manually.  It doesn't feel anything like a "wild guess".  With some other lenses you're probably correct as the focus by wire speed is variable and doesn't give a good feeling (from what I've read).  And if you adapt M-mount lenses, there's no focus by wire issue.

 

About the focus patch in the bottom right ... I agree it's not as elegant as the focus patch on a rangefinder.  I wouldn't call it a gimmick.  It's functional, just not elegant as it takes your eye to the side and bottom.  It's not as fluid as using a rangefinder.

 

As for using autofocus + EVF ... well the camera is well made for that.  But keep in mind that the OVF can be used with autofocus too, and it works well that way too.  The autofocus is fast and accurate and the patch can be moved around with the joystick.

 

It's fair to say the X-Pro2 is not great for manual focus like the Leica M, but that's balanced by it primarily being an autofocus camera with autofocus lenses.  So it serves a different mission.  The manual focus part is secondary and optional.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Using the OVF part of the X-Pro 2 sucks. The lenses are focus-by-wire so acquiring fast focus manually is just a wild guess work. It's far from being intuitive. The focus patch in the bottom right is distracting. You've got to frame, then look at the focus patch, and then frame again. It's nothing like the focus patch on a rangefinder. Most people quickly realize how gimmicky it is and end up using the camera with autofocus + EVF.

I'll back up ZlatkoB.  I don't use the focus patch as the X-Pro2 is an autofocus camera with OVF for daytime and reasonable light levels with EVF for the dark.  Fuji has been releasing XF lenses for almost 6 years now.  The older ones can be slow, but the newest are very fast to focus, with the slimline f/2 23, 35, and now 50 the fastest.  Those also block the lens less than the modern Summiluxes on an M, and the Fuji f/1.4 lenses do on the X-Pro2's OVF.  I think the Fuji camera presented a real challenge to Leica, as Jono Slack's review has hinted.  And, having an EVF means that zoom focus is always available for precise, slower work.

 

scott 

[pgk]

I personally would prefer an EVF M to a hybrid, I would think each would compromise the other and I don't see the point... but I DO understand why for some people that would be a possible solution.

 

An M with a L mount? ..... what if you wanted the same body, with controls in the same place and using all the same accessories, battery and so on.. .....

 

The only option is an M type body that allows that, is the M body shape... and I personally wouldn't want to use an M body with AF lenses... imagine the new L mount 50 1.4 on an M..? Or either of the two zooms? 

 

So why not let the decades of wonderful Leica glass be used on a digital Leica M and the user chooses whether he wants an OVF or an EVF (or both), at the point of purchase...?

 

Bill

 

An EVF-M is a compromise. An EVF-M with an L mount is not. Why hobble a newly developed camera with M lens capability only when it could use L mount MF/AF lenses perhaps built specifically for it and other smaller cameras in the future - small, neat, with integrated electronics - something which is extremely unlikely if they use the M mount? I understand exactly where you are coming from, but I don't see an EVF-M as being at all realistic. An EVF-L (M body shape/controls with an adapter for M lenses) does make good sense. Limiting it to M lenses simply does not.

[lct]

An EVF-M is a compromise. An EVF-M with an L mount is not. Why hobble a newly developed camera with M lens capability only when it could use L mount MF/AF lenses perhaps built specifically for it and other smaller cameras in the future - small, neat, with integrated electronics - something which is extremely unlikely if they use the M mount? I understand exactly where you are coming from, but I don't see an EVF-M as being at all realistic. An EVF-L (M body shape/controls with an adapter for M lenses) does make good sense. Limiting it to M lenses simply does not.

 

But an EVF-L would not have auto-magnification contrary to an EVF-M. Would then be in competition with less expensive and possibly more advanced mirrorless cameras.

[Mr.Q]

About the focus by wire ... that depends on the lens. With the 23mm f/1.4 the focus by wire works very well and feels intuitive. With focus peaking, it's actually super-easy to focus manually. It doesn't feel anything like a "wild guess". With some other lenses you're probably correct as the focus by wire speed is variable and doesn't give a good feeling (from what I've read). And if you adapt M-mount lenses, there's no focus by wire issue.

 

About the focus patch in the bottom right ... I agree it's not as elegant as the focus patch on a rangefinder. I wouldn't call it a gimmick. It's functional, just not elegant as it takes your eye to the side and bottom. It's not as fluid as using a rangefinder.

 

As for using autofocus + EVF ... well the camera is well made for that. But keep in mind that the OVF can be used with autofocus too, and it works well that way too. The autofocus is fast and accurate and the patch can be moved around with the joystick.

 

It's fair to say the X-Pro2 is not great for manual focus like the Leica M, but that's balanced by it primarily being an autofocus camera with autofocus lenses. So it serves a different mission. The manual focus part is secondary and optional.

Are you sure you're not referring to the 16mm f1.4 with the distance scale? Perhaps you are right about that lens but it's still an exception. With adapting M lenses you lose parrallax correction so that's ideal either.

 

Your point about the OVF being secondary is exactly what we've been discussing about. There's little value in a hybrid VF if both the OVF and EVF are compromised. Even the EVF part of the X-Pro 2 is poor compared to other modern EVF's that have much higher magnification and better eye relief.

[Peter H]

Are you sure you're not referring to the 16mm f1.4 with the distance scale? Perhaps you are right about that lens but it's still an exception. With adapting M lenses you lose parrallax correction so that's ideal either.

 

Your point about the OVF being secondary is exactly what we've been discussing about. There's little value in a hybrid VF if both the OVF and EVF are compromised. Even the EVF part of the X-Pro 2 is poor compared to other modern EVF's that have much higher magnification and better eye relief.

But all cameras are compromised in numerous ways.

 

We just have to choose the compromise that best suits us, not proscribe the ones that suit others.

 

For some shooting situations the X Pro 2 hybrid viewfinder's set of compromises is the best choice available to me. Other times it's an M. That's how it goes, but from a Leica perspective it's not as great as it might be.

[Leicaiste]

But an EVF-L would not have auto-magnification contrary to an EVF-M. Would then be in competition with less expensive and possibly more advanced mirrorless cameras.

Leica could put a moving cam in a new M-L adapter if they really wanted to.

 

It would be their choice not doing so.

[lct]

Leica could put a moving cam in a new M-L adapter if they really wanted to [...]

 

Interesting indeed. Any idea how this would work? Just curious.

[LocalHero1953]

Interesting indeed. Any idea how this would work? Just curious.

All it needs is something to detect when the focusing unit is being turned - it doesn't have to be mechanical.

 

Ref the concern that an EVF-L would face more competition than an EVF-M: that's true, but it would be in a far larger market, which would include the M market. A camera that can take all M lenses, all L-mount lenses and a lot more, is far more likely to be a success than one that can only take M lenses. I guess there are some people who would not buy it because it did not take M lenses natively, but would they be a significant number? I doubt they would outweigh the number who buy it because it could take more than just M lenses, and because it could do AF etc.

[Peter H]

All it needs is something to detect when the focusing unit is being turned - it doesn't have to be mechanical.

 

..........

 

 

That already happens in the M240 doesn't it?

 

Otherwise how would the EVF know to automatically magnify the focus area (if set to do so) as soon as I adjust the focussing on the lens?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[zlatkob]

Are you sure you're not referring to the 16mm f1.4 with the distance scale? Perhaps you are right about that lens but it's still an exception. With adapting M lenses you lose parrallax correction so that's ideal either.

 

Your point about the OVF being secondary is exactly what we've been discussing about. There's little value in a hybrid VF if both the OVF and EVF are compromised. Even the EVF part of the X-Pro 2 is poor compared to other modern EVF's that have much higher magnification and better eye relief.

Fuji's 16mm f/1.4 and 23mm f/1.4 work the same way.  They both have the AF/MF clutch mechanism and distance scale on the lens.  Most Fuji lenses do not.

 

I didn't say the OVF is secondary on the X-Pro2.  Rather, I said that manual focus is secondary.  The OVF can be used very well with autofocus, just as the EVF can.  Whether you use OVF or EVF, the camera works well as an autofocus camera.

 

The compromise is that both OVF and EVF are on the small side.  Certainly small by Leica standards.  And to be clear:  the hybrid VF is not something I'd recommend for Leica, unless they can somehow do it better than Fuji.  But you're overstating things to say that "there's little value in a hybrid VF".  The value is there.  You have either option, any time, at the flick of a switch.  You can use each for its advantages, switch to the other when it helps you.  It's not ideal, not perfect, but all cameras are compromised, as Peter H noted above.

[Mr.Q]

zlatkob, I don't want to side-track this thread too much so this will be my last post on the X-Pro 2.

 

Bottom line is that for autofocus, TTL (DSLR or EVF) is better suited than a rangefinder window. For manual focus, a rangefinder (a true mechanical one) is faster and an EVF is more accurate. (for critical focus) So where does that leave the OVF of a X-Pro 2, which by all accounts is more of an autofocus camera than a manual focus one? Useless, really. I own a X-T2 now and owned a X-T1, X-E2, and X-Pro1 in the past. I'm on Fuji forums quite regularly and I've read countless posts confirming that most users end up using the EVF only. (admittedly, there are a few, like yourself perhaps, that also use the OVF regularly) While the hybrid VF is a brilliant idea, it's really a poor implementation as a system. Fuji should make all their lenses with linear focus throws if they're serious about the rangefinder experience. Well that's my opinion. You're free to have your's.