Leica M 10

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No Pico. When used with other tools, as I do use a Hasselblad and sometimes a Canon, it's a very effective tool in the right circumstances, for the right things.

 

To suggest something is stupid, with no experience in such a shoot, and with no knowledge of how it's used, is both quite baffling and amusing.

 

Changing the circumstances to modify the argument is silly. Welcome to my ignore list.

Edited January 25, 2017 by pico

[Paul J]

Changing the circumstances to modify the argument is silly. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

 

How so? You tell me I'm stupid, I tell you how I use it. I've always said I use it along side a Hasselblad.

 

If you think I'm the only one to be using this camera in this way then I think you are a little out of touch. It's just a camera and it will take a picture of anything you point it at and with certain lenses it does so in a very particular way.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Paul J

[Advertisement]

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

[Paul J]

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

 

Thank heavens for that.

[ramarren]

It's funny because I thought you'd come back with this. It was you who started this whole "going back to film to return to real photography" thing. You've misconstrued and twisted my words, removed the context and most likely didn't even read what I'd said. You could take your own advice and read before making such presuppositions and interpretations.

 

You didn't mention oil painting, it was me - I used the analogy to draw parallel to your stated belief that - good photography transcends the medium: it's about expression, gesture, timing, seeing. - But a digital mimic of a film image in no way replaces it, and the same can be said for a digital mimic of an oil painting. Should we stop using oil paint because we can mimic it digitally? No! Should we stop using film because we can mimic it digitally? No! Medium and format is a key component of art and photography.

 

Your sentence previous to that stated that the dominance of film was over a 30 year period - so what? This does not mean it's now irrelevant or unimportant. It's having a come back because people realise its value, they see how it is different, and how the process of using it is different, and they want it back in their work.

 

Now you just wrote:

"... Whether I record the light with a piece of cattle bone covered with photosensitive chemicals or by sensing it with something electronic and storing it as 1s and 0s in a computer is completely irrelevant to the art and is just a matter of choice.."

 

No it's not completely irrelevant to the art! It's not just a matter of choice! It's these choices and decisions to do such things in certain ways that makes up the art. It is entirely relevant because an artist makes these decisions with intent. It is more irrelevant and simplistic to suggest that digital is the only thing to use because the medium is irrelevant, and that returning to film to get back to some thing of value is - in your words - "silly".

 

 

It's funny because I expected you would respond like this, evidence that you misunderstand yet again: 

• You don't understand the meaning of the expression "Good photography transcends the medium." :: The notion is that a fine photograph is what constitutes good photography, not the medium of recording or presentation. That does not say that the use of a particular medium is unimportant, it simply says that the art encompasses many mediums. This is not the case with oil painting... 
• You don't understand what I mean by "... Whether I record the light with a piece of cattle bone covered with photosensitive chemicals or by sensing it with something electronic and storing it as 1s and 0s in a computer is completely irrelevant to the art and is just a matter of choice.." :: The choice is not irrelevant to the art, the technology of recording is irrelevant to the recording being considered Photography. 
• Your analogy of oil painting to computer drawing is simply wrong, as seen in your attempt to describe it: "...a digital mimic of a film image in no way replaces it, and the same can be said for a digital mimic of an oil painting." ::  A piece of software simulating the visual effect of an oil painting is not oil painting in any way, but a device and software capturing light and creating an image on a computer is in no way simulating  (or "mimicking") what film does yet it is still photography: it is capturing light and creating an image. If you choose to mimic what film does, that's a choice that can contribute to your art or not depending on how well you pull it off. 

That's just a few of your misunderstandings. I'm not going to attempt to explain these things to you again because your many posts demonstrate that you have no desire to understand other people's thoughts and ideas; you're content with your own.

 

Good luck with that. 

[jaapv]

I never said it wasn't fun, or that it didn't have a different look. The process certainly does influence the result, as do all the wonderful defects that film has. They're different defects compared to digital capture, however, to be used to advantage when apropros.

It's hard crossing verbal swords when one agrees completely

[Paul J]

evidence that you misunderstand yet again: 

• You don't understand 
• You don't understand
• Your analogy is simply wrong, 

I'm not going to attempt to explain these things to you again because your many posts demonstrate that you have no desire to understand other people's thoughts and ideas; you're content with your own.

 

 

You tell me I don't understand, you tell me I'm wrong and then you acuse me of not trying to understand?   This gets funnier and more entertaining by the minute.

 

No need to explain good man, I do understand what you are saying. I just don't agree with you. is this a new experience for you or something?

 

But FYI, no I don't need to understand other peoples opinions being thrust on me  - like telling me I'm "stupid" for using a camera in a certain way, that was great! I don't need to understand that because it makes no difference to me and they are more than welcome to voice their opinion. It just becomes a problem when certain people can't deal with the response and shut down the communication and run away.

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You tell me I don't understand, you tell me I'm wrong and then you acuse me of not trying to understand?   This gets funnier and more entertaining by the minute.

 

No need to explain good man, I do understand what you are saying. I just don't agree with you. is this a new experience for you or something?

...

 

 

Your responses indicate your misunderstanding and incorrectness, and said my statements were incorrect. I presented explanations and clarifications. You now just say you do understand but don't agree. With what? and why?

 

You see: you don't want to discuss anything. You just want to declare your opinion as truth and fact, and sneer condescendingly at other people's opinions. Well, no skin off my back. I don't need to read your posts either. Bye.

Edited January 26, 2017 by ramarren

[almoore]

As was once wisely observed: "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake."

[Paul J]

Your responses indicate your misunderstanding and incorrectness, and said my statements were incorrect. I presented explanations and clarifications. You now just say you do understand but don't agree. With what? and why?

 

You see: you don't want to discuss anything. You just want to declare your opinion as truth and fact, and sneer condescendingly at other people's opinions. Well, no skin off my back. I don't need to read your posts either. Bye.

 

You want me to misunderstand and you want me to be incorrect.

 

I've told you why and you just tell me I'm wrong. I understand the points you are trying to make but I don't agree with you for the reasons I have already stated and somehow you are offended by that.

 

My opinion is my truth I don't share your need to justify myself. While this has been mildly entertaining, the novelty has just worn off.

[imants]

As was once wisely observed: "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake."

Two left brainers arguing about right brain stuff

[pgk]

.......mmm ...... I think we are looking at a dinosaur that has successfully avoided the extinction of it's contemporaries ....... but is still an evolutionary dead end.

 

If Leica stick with the M film camera size, the M mount, the mechanically coupled rangefinder (all of which are the species hallmark features) then there is precious little left in terms of actual innovation that is possible without sacrificing one or more of these key things ...... so that leaves just replacing the digital bits as technology allows ...... and that is invariably several years behind the competition (including their own cameras) from past and current experience.

Evolution versus revolution. Interesting that the two are seen as needing to happen. A real revolution would be fitting a rangefinder to an SL because we all like using rangefinders wouldn't it? Or would it? I think the mistake all too often made is one of assuming that equipment is not fit for purpose because it doesn't fit with our own personal preferences, and I'm as guilty as anyone. However add into the mix R&D and economics and what is possible soon narrows dow. So a rangefinder in an SL might suit a few but wouldn't be likely to be an economic viability, and modifying an M to produce an EVF only camera which is M mount only (as has been suggested often enough) may well fit into the same category and would, like the current rangefinders, apparently be an evolutionary dead end - but without the potential sales to make it thoroughly worth doing (I might be wrong ). Life is complicated.

[pop]

Will anyone say anything about the most recent camera by Leica, the M10, any time soon?

[pgk]

Will anyone say anything about the most recent camera by Leica, the M10, any time soon?

 

I thought that this thread was about the M10 and whether it would/does represent evolution rather than revolution. Most seem to agree that its evolutionary and the discussion is now about whether the M range will ever become revolutionary or whether the M10 represents an evolutionary dead end (which I for one disagree with). Not sure where else such a discussion, circular though it may be, should carry on?

[Paul J]

I was trying to talk about the camera and the fact it has had its usb port removed and its significant effect.

 

However my chosen profession, the amount of people I work with, and very presence seems to rub people up the wrong way. I wonder why... I'm apparently stupid, wrong, silly, left brained (lol) and a bunch of other things, people can't help themselves but to take a punch, but their words have the opposite effect of what I think is their intention and it only says more about them. It is this modern wonderment and phenomena called the internet I guess.

 

I will continue to use my favourite camera in the same way when I can and when i do I will smile even more because I know it has this effect on people. 

 

The M10 is a wonderful camera and i will not give up on it just yet. The king is dead long live the king.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Paul J

[wattsy]

Will anyone say anything about the most recent camera by Leica, the M10, any time soon?

 

 

Feel free to educate us, Philipp.

[imants]

left brained (lol).... you are trying to use logic in a linear manner and all over a usb ........

Edited January 26, 2017 by epsonRD1

[Paul J]

left brained (lol).... you are trying to use logic in a linear manner

 

 

You are going to have to pick a number and get in line sir.

[imants]

see you are a kacky brainer. do I have to pick the number in a sequence

Edited January 26, 2017 by epsonRD1

[chris_tribble]

My 2 cents... It's very early days and I'm still having to scotch tape a diopter in place so I can use the M10 without glasses (which does work OK in fact - though it looks ugly on such a nicely engineered piece of kit...)

 

Overall impression?  It is possible that this is the last digital M I will need to buy.

WHY?

• It gives me the IQ that I've been hoping for since the M8
• It has sufficient resolution for my purposes and for the lenses I use (no systematic testing with the 21 Super-Elmar and 28 Summicron Asph, but I'm very encouraged)
• It handles beautifully
• Combined with the Visoflex 020 it gives me a flexibility around focusing systems I've wanted for a long time (90% of the time I'll use the OVF - but it's great to have the option of EVF when it makes sense)
• I can have silver and black chrome

The only things I don't like?

• The leather strap - it's not flexible enough.  I'll probably revert to the original Leica strap of which I have spares
• The lack of the little plastic scuff protector.
• Having to get (and wait for) a thread adapter so I can use my existing diopters (or buy new - at least Leica have given me the option )

The only problem I've had so far?

• For some reason neither of my Lexar SDHX 64GB cards work.  
• Having to wait for the thread-adapter 

I'll write a longer first impressions when I've used it a bit more, but overall, this is the M I've been waiting for for 10 years.

I can also relate to the frustration of people who depend on tethered shooting or video.  While I feel and understand their pain, as these are non-issues for me I'm a very happy bunny.

Edited January 26, 2017 by chris_tribble

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Distagon]

Doesn't seem to me that the M is at any more of an evolutionary dead end than an Oak tree - it works great for taking pictures in a certain way - and it'll carry on doing that.

That there are so many obsessing here about Leica Ms, and that the M10 appears to be in high demand in spite of the price, modest upgrades and a shrinking camera market, all show that the M still has plenty of life left in it.

To extend the evolutionary metaphor, it reminds me of an estuarine crocodile: a simple-looking but deceptively sophisticated beast that just got things right and hasn't needed to change much in the past 55 million years.

I still advocate for hybridisation if and when it can be done really well, but the current Ms have nonetheless hit a sweat spot.