Leica M 10

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not quite sure whether lighter is necessarily  a desirable property. I have always favoured substantial cameras for stability. Looking at the  weight I am prepared to carry, it maxes out at about a 10 Kg backpack for a full travel kit. A few hundred grams for a body is neither here nor there in that context.

For my use, with lenses ranging from an Elmar-M to substantial teles and telezooms, the present M dimensions and weight are a good compromise.

 

 

10 kg is more than my total baggage for a whole trip! I take carry-on and like to travel light.

 

Agree cameras that are too light can be unstable, and too small is fiddly -- but plenty of people manage with smart phones as their only camera. 

 

There have been plenty of SLRs that have been smaller and lighter than M cameras (Olympus OM, as mentioned, Pentax ME, etc). About the mid 1990s, SLRs became ever bigger and more bloated, sort of the SUVs of the camera world.

 

Not too heavy, not too small, not too many features, not too minimalist, not too expensive -- how hard can it be? 

[Advertisement]

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

[uhoh7]

In some dimensions yes, in others no. Certainly I've yet to meet anyone that enjoys hand holding when the lens substantially outweighs the body.  But as a complimentary, companion body to the M, I'd prefer to trend toward the diminutive, acknowledging that while others might, I've no strong desire to shoot with a Leica beyond 90 or 135mm.

I have alot of experience with lenses outweighing the body:

Canon LTM 85/1.5 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

It never stopped me or even made me hesitate. At a certain point you hold the lens more than the body, but that is an easy adaptation. Basically on any body the lighter lenses feel nicer to me. That nex actually holds better than the M9, because it has a built in grip around the battery. The 75 Lux is a pig on everything, and it would be on a D810 if that was possible. However it's a fine lens and when you want it, you want it. But even though it completely smokes at 5.6, good as 90AA (so Puts says anyway) I have another 75 to take to the landscape, because the Lux is too heavy for a hike.

Semi fast by unoh7, Kolari A7

 

That little 75 will feel fine on any body no matter how small, as will all of my landscape lenses, which by definition are portable: for me anyway.

Spanish Horse by unoh7, M9 90 summarit.

 

For mountain travel NOTHING trumps size and weight if performance is equal. It's a law of nature. And the market knows it. We know Leica even knows it, because the main change in the M10 is the footprint LOL OK some might debate that, we don't know yet, but that's a big part.

 

And I'm not advocating that everyone must change. M10 looks great, honestly. I'd love to have one. M9 is my favorite camera ever. But something really small is invaluable. Look at the first Leicas and you will know who would agree.

 

Now on focus: yes having lived with EVFs for hundreds of thousands of shots, they suck. Even the very best are just good enough to work for MF, and my M9 hit rates always exceed my A7 hit rates, even at superspeed. Only the big focus shifters are better with EVF. The 21st century Barnack might have an add on RF, or even a really well integrated one, as again , I think the base width of the current Ms is not the determining factor of the camera width: they could be less wide, I believe. Somebody can show me that is not the case, I'm all ears.

 

So the EVF weaknesses are all the more reason to seriously consider L and optional AF adapter for M, along with a CF adapter. If the camera has EVF only sometimes you just don't want to squint. AF option is nice in that case. I've had many a headache from EVFs and LCDs. Never from optical RF. I will always have a RF camera. But I may not, in fact even now I do not always take it, as I have use of a RX1r2. Which misses focus all the time, despite my study of it. It's the least ergonomic little battery eating beast anyone could possibly come up with, far harder to hold than nex+75 lux. But it goes ANYWHERE. At 35mm FL there is no compromise, in fact nothing can really beat it. For all it's silly avoidable weaknesses the RX1 has become a famous camera and is in alot of bags today-many more than the better designed Q. Why?

 

There's no sense in overthinking. For Homo sapiens traveling any distance on their own power, size matters. A simple inexorable truth. A north star to Oskar Barnack

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Exactly.

 

The idea a EVF M body must be the size of the SL is preposterous. The SL is a beautiful camera. Useless to me because of it's size. M9 and A7.mod are really too big too, but I can just manage.

 

What I would like and I KNOW would be a hit is to take that technical savvy which went into to the SL and turn to this: 21st century Barnack. A ergonomic technical body for the M, small as any iPhone will tell you it can be (nex-5 could be FF), with no allegiance to tradition, only to practical function as a "mountain" camera like the Barnack. Of course the camera must be a certain thickness right at the mount, but the rest of the body can be thinned and thickened for function. The LCD can tilt. The EVF can pop up, or be in the body. Even a optical RF with M240 base could go in a much smaller body, if all engineering stops were pulled out.

 

The M lens line is state of the art, aside from AF and CF. Both of those options are possible already on the Sony bodies, so why not on any Leica? Maybe the L mount would give room for this in the form of a special adapter. Let the camera be ugly, if it is light, small, tough, and versatile.

 

Such a body would put M back in the bags of many a war corespondent. In fact the M to L AF adapter would also let him use the small back on many other lenses. The E-mount is 18mm and the L is 19mm, so there is certainly space. I don't suggest this because I'm a big fan of AF, but most of the world is. Look at how the A7 has "saved" sony. It is carrying the company right now. In 2011 when I told my friends at FM Sony should make a FF Nex, they fell over laughing. Niche camera, they cried. Who would buy it?

 

Make the camera above in addition to the great traditional options, like M10, and Leica would have more business than they can imagine. Of course most here don't care so much, we are already "converted". But there is nothing stopping Leica from getting a much bigger market footprint, except vision.

 

And a few old men guarding their lawns with hoses,

sounds to me like the latest iPhone 7plus....... well maybe just the 7 would fit your needs well

[Distagon]

Now on focus: yes having lived with EVFs for hundreds of thousands of shots, they suck. Even the very best are just good enough to work for MF, and my M9 hit rates always exceed my A7 hit rates, even at superspeed. Only the big focus shifters are better with EVF. 

 

Thanks for your interesting post.

 

You report that the Sony's a7Rii (I assume) EVF is poor for manual focussing.

That's the user experience with an XGA (1024 x 768 pixel x 3 colour = 2.36 MP) EVF.

 

Somewhere on the continuum from the a7Rii's 2.36 MP to the Leica SL (SXGA: 1280 x 1024 pixels x 3 colour = 3.93 MP) there must be a threshold for good MF support, as the SL does support reliable manual focus with R lenses.

 

Honest question, which some Q and SL owners might also wish to comment on:

 

I wonder how the Leica Q / Visoflex Typ 020 EVF (1280 x 960 pixels x 3 colour = 3.68 MP) stacks up for manual focussing?

Is the increased EVF resolution sufficient to deliver a reliable MF result?

Would uhoh7 have a better experience with manual focus, given use of a superior EVF?

 

The comparison would no doubt also depend on system refresh rates and the ergonomics of other focus aids, such as focus point zooming and contrast detection / focus peaking. (Or - dare I write it - an optoelectronic rangefinder.)

[ianman]

Yes, indeed.

One can only write the same thing so many times without the message getting through, as it clearly hasn't.

 

If the message is clearly written to begin with the there is absolutely no reason to write it again... if people bother to read all the posts of course, and that very clearly is not the case.

But even a clearly written post does not mean it has to be accepted. There is nothing wrong with having different points of view. That point does seem to be difficult to accept from some members here.

[Distagon]

If the message is clearly written to begin with the there is absolutely no reason to write it again... if people bother to read all the posts of course, and that very clearly is not the case.

But even a clearly written post does not mean it has to be accepted. There is nothing wrong with having different points of view. That point does seem to be difficult to accept from some members here.

 

Yes, I entirely agree.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Exactly but contrary to what i read above (no criticism here ) i don't feel my Sony's EVF poor for manual focusing at all. Its resolution could be better of course but to nail focus on all the EVFs i've used so far (including the SL's, no experience with the T's), especially at wide apertures, i felt it necessary to bring up image magnification anyway. This way, my current Sony A7s mod's and Fuji X-E2's EVFs are more accurate than my 0.68x, 0.72x, 0.85x and 0.91x rangefinders. To me, modern EVFs are therefore superior to any optical RF from this viewpoint but the manual focusing process is slower with EVFs due to the necessity to press a button for bringing up image magnification. Hence my interest for the 'M10' which can bring up image magnification automatically the same way as the M240, i presume, and could then be both the faster and the more accurate manual focusing camera thanks to its RF and faster EVF hopefully. This pending the arrival of the M11's or M12's electronic and/or hybrid rangefinder. FWIW.

[pgk]

If the message is clearly written to begin with the there is absolutely no reason to write it again... if people bother to read all the posts of course, and that very clearly is not the case.

But even a clearly written post does not mean it has to be accepted. There is nothing wrong with having different points of view. That point does seem to be difficult to accept from some members here.

 

Absolutely.

 

The basic problem here is really about different aspirations amongst poster as to what they actually want in a future M.

 

Some like me see additions as being potentially detrimental to the primary function of the M rangefinder because they try to hybridise it, and I certainly believe that simply adding innovation rarely, if ever, produces as good a piece of equipment as one which is built from the ground up. Hence I am protective of the original concept of the M and vociferous in stating the potential technical problems in modifying it. My position is that building a new camera (albeit the same basic dimensions/body shape as the M rangefinder) is a far better way to go.

 

Others want a highly modified M and whilst I see why I don't see modification as a long term solution I understand why the modifications are deemed beneficial - but they are not for me.

 

Whatever happens though I am sure that we will have a platform for our M lenses which fortunately will continue to produce as good images as they do now.

[harmen]

Some like me see additions as being potentially detrimental to the primary function of the M rangefinder because they try to hybridise it, and I certainly believe that simply adding innovation rarely, if ever, produces as good a piece of equipment as one which is built from the ground up. Hence I am protective of the original concept of the M and vociferous in stating the potential technical problems in modifying it. My position is that building a new camera (albeit the same basic dimensions/body shape as the M rangefinder) is a far better way to go.

 

 

From the ground up.  Yes, that opens up possibilities.  There are two big factors, leading to possibly 3 distinct directions to take for an EVF based camera.  The question is, what kind of shooting do you want?  The two variables are method of focus and seeing either the scene or the final image.

 

Option 1) Show the final image and automate focus as much as possible.  The SL excels in this.

Option 2) Show the scene unaltered and provide two overlapping images for focusing from two cameras; no need to show what the actual lens sees.  That would be exactly like the current optical view, but created electronically.

Option 3) Create an EVF so big and detailed that it mimics a ground glass.  No need to zoom in to focus.

 

Option 1 takes SLRs a step further towards the final image and full automation (but with control).  For the indecisive moments as Jaap said.

Option 2 makes the M as is electronic.  Refresh rates and resolution may just not be sufficient yet.  It would however keep the original way of perceiving a scene while optimising the engineering.  My guess is that this is a while away before it can out-do optical.

Option 3 is an optimisation for manual focus where any point can be judged for sharpness, while the whole image is visible.  Q and SL are not too far off from this.  I'm still of the mind that it should however not process the image (no white balance, no exposure compensation) to stay close to the actual scene.  No idea why I think option 3 would take that direction.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

(taken with a Q to avoid breaching forum rules ;-) )

 

[M28]

Let's get back to the M.

 

messucher!

 

Rangefinder optimised lenses for a range finder.

 

The only things I would really desire to be improved are in my not so humble opinion are:

 

Weight of camera to decrease.

Size of camera to decrease.

Ergonomics to improve

Focussing speed and reliability to improve by whatever additional means that can be applied to work with a range finder

Improved rangefinder

Vastly improved low light capability

50mp

Waterproofing

Longer guarantee

Self cleaning or easier manual cleaning of sensor

Fast memory change

Long battery life

iSO dial

5k video but 4K will do

Leica software that's equivalent of light room so that lens camera and processing and viewing software workflow is all in one solution.

[lct]

[...] The only things I would really desire to be improved are in my not so humble opinion are:

Weight of camera to decrease.

Size of camera to decrease.

[...] 50mp [...]

 

While there is life there is hope

[BerndReini]

Let's get back to the M.

 

messucher!

 

Rangefinder optimised lenses for a range finder.

 

The only things I would really desire to be improved are in my not so humble opinion are:

 

Weight of camera to decrease.

Size of camera to decrease.

Ergonomics to improve

Focussing speed and reliability to improve by whatever additional means that can be applied to work with a range finder

Improved rangefinder

Vastly improved low light capability

50mp

Waterproofing

Longer guarantee

Self cleaning or easier manual cleaning of sensor

Fast memory change

Long battery life

iSO dial

5k video but 4K will do

Leica software that's equivalent of light room so that lens camera and processing and viewing software workflow is all in one solution.

 

5k video? Give me a break. "Game of Thrones" is shot in 2k. Leica software that is equivalent to Lightroom? Ha! Yes, last I heard Leica bought Adobe. Yes, your opinion is indeed not so humble, and I have a feeling you will be disappointed.

[chris_tribble]

I think Leica will give us less (which will, of course, be more)

 

No video

Smaller (marginally)

Lighter (marginally)

Quieter (marginally)

Better High and Low ISO (significantly)

24MP resolution

Better add-on EVF (probably the Visoflex 020)

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the M240 remains in production so that those who need / want video can have this option.

I also think this will be the right way to go and I've put my name down for one on this basis - and sold the SL. Rather than trying to be all things to all photographers, the M (with its family of stellar manually focused lenses) will be (for me) the ideal light-weight companion / reportage / landscape camera.  The SL will be the Swiss Army Knife for those who want one...

[jaapv]

Let's get back to the M.

 

messucher!

 

Rangefinder optimised lenses for a range finder.

 

The only things I would really desire to be improved are in my not so humble opinion are:

 

Weight of camera to decrease.

Size of camera to decrease.

Ergonomics to improve

Focussing speed and reliability to improve by whatever additional means that can be applied to work with a range finder

Improved rangefinder

Vastly improved low light capability

50mp

Waterproofing

Longer guarantee

Self cleaning or easier manual cleaning of sensor

Fast memory change

Long battery life

iSO dial

5k video but 4K will do

Leica software that's equivalent of light room so that lens camera and processing and viewing software workflow is all in one solution.

Easier to clean the sensor manually - I'm a bit stumped by that one.

[ianman]

I think Leica will give us less (which will, of course, be more)

 

No video

Smaller (marginally)

Lighter (marginally)

Quieter (marginally)

Better High and Low ISO (significantly)

24MP resolution

Better add-on EVF (probably the Visoflex 020)

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the M240 remains in production so that those who need / want video can have this option.

I also think this will be the right way to go and I've put my name down for one on this basis - and sold the SL. Rather than trying to be all things to all photographers, the M (with its family of stellar manually focused lenses) will be (for me) the ideal light-weight companion / reportage / landscape camera.  The SL will be the Swiss Army Knife for those who want one...

 

 

 

YES !!!

 

I like your thoughts Chris... something like this could make me "upgrade" from my M9.

[lct]

Easier to clean the sensor manually - I'm a bit stumped by that one.

 

A thinner body may induce a shallower sensor which would be easier to clean up eventually. Quite handy on A7 bodies but the M10's sensor will be more recessed than the latters' most probably.

[jaapv]

How that? The flange-sensor distance must neccessarily be the same. The sensor on an A7 with M adapter is exactly the same depth as on a Leica M. You must remove the adapter to get closer.

[lct]

Yes of course but we have discussed about this already haven't we? Just for a reminder:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

YES !!!

 

I like your thoughts Chris... something like this could make me "upgrade" from my M9.

I think it would make quite a nice camera - but I can see quite a few M240 owners hanging on to their cameras, even getting a second body in the price slump.

If I were Leica I would save a little surprise for the 18th, assuming that they do indeed introduce the new M then.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Absolutely.

 

The basic problem here is really about different aspirations amongst poster as to what they actually want in a future M.

 

Some like me see additions as being potentially detrimental to the primary function of the M rangefinder because they try to hybridise it, and I certainly believe that simply adding innovation rarely, if ever, produces as good a piece of equipment as one which is built from the ground up. Hence I am protective of the original concept of the M and vociferous in stating the potential technical problems in modifying it. My position is that building a new camera (albeit the same basic dimensions/body shape as the M rangefinder) is a far better way to go.

 

Others want a highly modified M and whilst I see why I don't see modification as a long term solution I understand why the modifications are deemed beneficial - but they are not for me.

 

Whatever happens though I am sure that we will have a platform for our M lenses which fortunately will continue to produce as good images as they do now.

Think of a Qish style camera and you wont be far wrong...............one that adapts M lenses