EdwardM Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2361 Posted January 20, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) it is not exactly the same. Higher resolution and slightly larger. Yes, resolution is higher, but the tech spec says 3" for M10 and M240. I suspect that LCD frame is slightly bigger Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 Hi EdwardM, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
EdwardM Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2362 Posted January 20, 2017 By the way, what is the basic ISO? Erwin Puts says on his web site its 200. If its PUSH 100 then its tricky Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2363 Posted January 20, 2017 Yes, resolution is higher, but the tech spec says 3" for M10 and M240. I suspect that LCD frame is slightly bigger They physical screen is not the exact same dimensions and is slightly larger and a different aspect ratio Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2364 Posted January 20, 2017 "The monitor on the back side of the camera has also been changed in dimensions: M/240 has width/height of 71.9 and 50,3 mm; M10 has 75.5 and 51.5 mm." Erwin Puts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2365 Posted January 20, 2017 Any chance to get another high res version of that visoflex thing? Something with actual spec iPhone with Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen.w Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2366 Posted January 20, 2017 By the way, what is the basic ISO? Erwin Puts says on his web site its 200. If its PUSH 100 then its tricky You mean "pull" 100? If this is the case, I would say it would have been better off left in the menu, like ISOS <6400. The SL's base ISO is 100, no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2367 Posted January 20, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) All ISO are pushed anyway in digital world Envoyé de mon iPad en utilisant Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen.w Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2368 Posted January 20, 2017 All ISO are pushed anyway in digital world Envoyé de mon iPad en utilisant Tapatalk But the base ISO from which it is pushed will vary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2369 Posted January 20, 2017 For my part I think it feels good to see a company focusing on essential things like viewfinder, handling and IQ instead to focus on more features and numbers. Some may call it outdated, other call it a proven product. One think I would love though was Sensor-stabi. I can see the disappointment of those who like to shoot tethered or who like movie, but I would think thats only a small part of the M-crowd. And if those 2 points are important, why not just stay with the M 240 like it is? (I personally prefer the SL for video, since it offers IS, a great EVF and 4k if needed). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
olgierdc Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2370 Posted January 20, 2017 From technical data sheet: ISO 100 to ISO 50000, adjustable in 1/3 ISO increments from ISO 200, choice of automatic control or manual setting. It seems that below 200 ISO is pushed, especially there is no 160 setting, I guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2371 Posted January 20, 2017 You mean "pull" 100? If this is the case, I would say it would have been better off left in the menu, like ISOS <6400. The SL's base ISO is 100, no? I thought it is ISO 50. But not critical anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2372 Posted January 20, 2017 I can see the disappointment of those who like to shoot tethered or who like movie, but I would think thats only a small part of the M-crowd. And if those 2 points are important, why not just stay with the M 240 like it is? (I personally prefer the SL for video, since it offers IS, a great EVF and 4k if needed). No reason for disappointmenr. The M10 has WiFi, so there is an app for remote control. That is probably just as useful as tethering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2373 Posted January 20, 2017 Okay so the camera looks sexy but I'm afraid I have moved away from the leica M system after many years of use and now only have the Q which is just a fantastic picture making machine. I have to say that if I was still an M user I would really have wanted to see Leica integrating the EVF along with the OVF in the way that my Fuji X-Pro2 works. In this day and age to have to clip on an additional finder is not only an expensive extra and somewhat unsightly but also faintly annoying. On the whole it is an obvious step forward and the lack of video really wouldn't bother me but I will be sticking to my Sony's and Fuji's Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2374 Posted January 20, 2017 I keep hearing about the EVF, but I'm curious to know how many M users actually prefer using a EVF over the OVF on a regular basis. EVF's are great for auto-focusing cameras (I do have a Leica Q and Fuji X-T2) but I would much rather use the rangefinder for manual focusing M lenses. It's just so much faster and liberating to shoot with a rangefinder. Live View is enough for the rare occasion that I'd shoot macro or landscapes. A clip-on EVF would have no practical use for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2375 Posted January 20, 2017 I keep hearing about the EVF, but I'm curious to know how many M users actually prefer using a EVF over the OVF on a regular basis. EVF's are great for auto-focusing cameras (I do have a Leica Q and Fuji X-T2) but I would much rather use the rangefinder for manual focusing M lenses. It's just so much faster and liberating to shoot with a rangefinder. Live View is enough for the rare occasion that I'd shoot macro or landscapes. A clip-on EVF would have no practical use for me. It's exactly because it's fairly rarely that I need an EVF, but when I do it's very helpful, that a small clip-on one is a good solution for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2376 Posted January 20, 2017 I keep hearing about the EVF, but I'm curious to know how many M users actually prefer using a EVF over the OVF on a regular basis. EVF's are great for auto-focusing cameras (I do have a Leica Q and Fuji X-T2) but I would much rather use the rangefinder for manual focusing M lenses. It's just so much faster and liberating to shoot with a rangefinder. Live View is enough for the rare occasion that I'd shoot macro or landscapes. A clip-on EVF would have no practical use for me. Yes, rangefinders have their advantages. They also have intrinsic limitations, though. EVF is very useful for composing lenses wider than 28mm and mid-telephoto. If we could have a camera with hybrid EVF and rangefinder, it would offer the advantages of both for the situations in which they are most useful. Putting the question of EVFs to current M shooters is a loaded question, not least because the only EVF for M before the release of the M10 was the M-240's EVF2, and that was substandard when announced four years ago. Although some people may find the EVF2 useful, it is fair to say that M shooters have not had access to a decent EVF before now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2377 Posted January 20, 2017 Yes, rangefinders have their advantages. They also have intrinsic limitations, though. EVF is very useful for composing lenses wider than 28mm and mid-telephoto. If we could have a camera with hybrid EVF and rangefinder, it would offer the advantages of both for the situations in which they are most useful. Putting the question of EVFs to current M shooters is a loaded question, not least because the only EVF for M before the release of the M10 was the M-240's EVF2, and that was substandard when announced four years ago. Although some people may find the EVF2 useful, it is fair to say that M shooters have not had access to a decent EVF before now. That makes sense. So shooters that 1) rarely shoot below 28mm, 2) rarely shoot with lenses with razor thin DOF (50 Nocti, 75/90 apo, etc) would have practically no use for an EVF. I have a 21 SEM but it only stays on the camera for 5-15 shots at a time. So the Live View is more than sufficient. For my 35 lux and 50 lux an EVF would only slow me down. Same goes for my 90 Elmarit. I always thought the way I use my M is quite normal, but judging by the amount of people commenting on the EVF, maybe it isn't? Maybe most people do not shoot with 28mm, 35mm, or 50mm lenses the vast majority of the time? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2378 Posted January 20, 2017 I can see the disappointment of those who like to shoot tethered or who like movie, but I would think thats only a small part of the M-crowd. And if those 2 points are important, why not just stay with the M 240 like it is? (I personally prefer the SL for video, since it offers IS, a great EVF and 4k if needed). I can't. Wrong platform entirely for tethered or video. Much better options exist. These were peripheral features which should never have been added to an M camera in the first place. I'm delighted that Leica have seen the sense in not overloading the M10 with features which are highly compromised from the start. Leica cameras should do something well or not do it at all IMO. Rangefinder M are superb within their limitations and should remain that way. Compromise always shows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2379 Posted January 20, 2017 Both OVFs and EVFs have their advantages and disadvantages. OVF: + view outside the frame + clarity/immediacy of view - poor framing - designed only for the 28-90(135) range - central point focusing only EVF + WYSIWYG for framing and focusing + options for exposure simulation - resolution, speed, low light performance have been limited until now (cf the SL's EVF) It's a waste of effort declaring one or the other is "best". Just use the one that has the characteristics you want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2380 Posted January 20, 2017 ........ It's a waste of effort declaring one or the other is "best". Just use the one that has the characteristics you want. Absolutely. My trouble is, I like them both. That's one of the biggest attractions of the M240, and why I'm feeling a little disappointed about the M10: it has both and I was hoping I could have the best of both in one camera, but that opportunity has gone, for now at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.