Leica M 10

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

I agree with this, Paul - hence my dislike of the M(240), and my preference for the first Monochrom, the M60 and the M-A.

 

But, keeping the M simple (as Chris suggests above) might appeal to you and to me, leaves it well short of universal appeal. It may well be that Leica concentrates on keeping the M traditional, and the L mount cameras as the tech platform; the Swiss army knife cameras. That leaves the M as the "purist" camera PeterH dreaded on the release of the SL. The reaction of many to this seems to be to buy a Sony and adapt it for M lenses, or some other platform, or to move away from the M altogether.

 

Call the camera anything (I don't think it matters in the least), but an M form, with M mount, aperture priority camera (identical in all respects to the latest M) but with a built in EVF instead of the optical rangefinder does have a place in the line-up in my view as it enables users to overcome one or two drawbacks in the original crf concept. It should also be cheaper to make.

 

Will it kill the M? Why? If it sells, it will be successful, and Leica still makes film cameras. It has diversified the M cameras beyond recognition, and it doesn't seem to have hurt the system at all.

 

Would it be for me? Probably not. I've followed the "traditionalist" route, and I'll stick with the SL. If I find that system too big and too heavy in the long run, I might. I would be very sad to part with my M system, and an evf addition would probably keep me in it.

[Advertisement]

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

[CYBORA]

It should also be cheaper to make.

 

 

In Leica's pricing mentality, it will be more expensive than the traditional M 

[Tailwagger]

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

 

Or, to invert, think about the pool of available M lenses and imagine an EVF body designed specifically for their use. 

[jaapv]

I've split off a number of posts that wandered off topic and put them into this thread:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268041-skies-with-small-objects/?do=findComment&comment=3180832

[uhoh7]

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.

I respect your view, for sure. In fact I felt the same way when I first started with the M9, coming from A7. But results don't lie. My hit rate on M9 is always higher. Now, lets forget that the r2 has nicer EVF and SL WAY nicer. You want to hit very critical focus on A7 you can use peaking, or mag or both. Peaking takes the already suspect TV image and ruins it completely, or if you turn it way down, it is not reliable that your POF will have the contrast to get the peak. Using the mag is a whole other nightmare. First you suddenly loose the entire frame, that is a shock to the senses. It's like groping around for your shoes through 200mm glasses. That new frame is noisy as all get out. With UWA it is basically terrible. The box is very cumbersome to move about. All this fiddling makes you move the camera. At 74/1.4 a tiny movement of the body will loose focus.

 

I think the R6 prism must also be better on the ground than the Sonys. Yes you can focus. But compared to the RF it's painful. Literally. I seriously get headaches often from my sony. Part is that you must focus infinity unless you have a great adapter. Nightmare in the landscape. It doesn't move, at least. But with a M you hit infinity and that's it. Nothing is faster. The SL adapter I'd expect is the same, so in a "super ff L mount" we would at least expect accurate infinity stops with M lenses.

 

I think the mag box is better implemented in the SL, but I've never seen one, maybe somebody can chime in.

 

It's fair to ask: with all this whining about EVFs why on earth would you want one? Again that nice little four letter word: size. If the body is really small it's worth it on a long hike or just traveling light as possible anywhere. You still want that full RF, and you will often gladly, with great relief, take it over the beast of many TVs.

 

I shot the 135/2.8 WO on my M9 at an event recently. I took about 15 snaps. Almost all were near to perfect. The 75 LUX on the A7 at f/2 missed about 20%.

 

At River Run by unoh7, on Flickr

 

Crux by unoh7, yes, that's the guy I was aiming for..

 

L1055981-2 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

Those are all 135 Elmarit (most underrated M lens) at F/2.8 on my M9 which I've dragged everywhere since 2014 with no recalibration. I was shocked myself how perfect the RF worked. With my 135 APO I probably could not do it. Googles are ugly but they seriously work.

 

My A7 Kolari will be mad if I don't show one with Lux and EVF, might be 1.8:

DSC09297-2 by unoh7, 75 Summilux

I should warm up the M9 shots a tad....I mean a Sony....is that sweet? The sensors are perfectly fine, it's just the clear .7mm coverglass plus the 1.9mm filter stack which spoils the party. Latest mods pull the cover glass off, throw out the filter stack an add a single IR cut of one's choosing, between .7 and 1mm. I'll do an A7rii like that this year I hope. Because I can't wait for the new Barnack Plus FF L mount! Wake up Solms!

[jaapv]

You forgot one drawback of focus peaking: The higher you turn it up to get it more prominent, the more inaccurate it gets as it starts picking up lower contrast, i.e. less sharp, edges. It is the most accurate when it is barely visible.

 

As far as adapters go, I do not think that there is one adapter that hits infinity, for two reasons. The adapter makers want to compensate for thermal expansion and they want to make sure that infinity is within their tolerances.

[chris_tribble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You forgot one drawback of focus peaking: The higher you turn it up to get it more prominent, the more inaccurate it gets as it starts picking up lower contrast, i.e. less sharp, edges. It is the most accurate when it is barely visible.

 

One of the other reasons why I got rid of the SL - I lost a whole set of lovely landscape shots with the 28mm summicron because I'd been experimenting with focus peaking.  I have also had the same experience as uhoh7 with the SLOWNESS of using magnification for focusing. For me, the RF - especially in challenging situations - remains the quickest way of manually focusing M lenses.  

 

Of course, AF with matched professional body / lens is another story. But, for the kind of work I mostly do, if I had to choose between carrying a 5D3 + a couple of primes and an M and the same focal lengths (eg 28 + 75 or 135) I'd always chose the M.

If I was a sports shooter or spent all my time covering political events, first choice would be DSLR + f2.8 24-70 / 70-200 + f4 200-400 if I was really serious!.  These are the work horses - but there would be always be an M with a 35 cron in the bag...

[Steve Ash]

Here comes the good news for anybody seeking for the revolutionary next step in the M system. I am definitely going to buy the M10, a lovely ovf/rangefinder camera on 19th of January. According to my experience after buying the M8.2 it will take Leica only about a year to do the next revolutionary step (at that time to realise the impossible digital full frame M),

 

Regards,

Steve

[MarkP]

 

If I was a sports shooter or spent all my time covering political events, first choice would be DSLR + f2.8 24-70 / 70-200 + f4 200-400 if I was really serious!.  These are the work horses - but there would be always be an M with a 35 cron in the bag...

 

 

Understood, as career and income absolutely depends on the reliability and versatility and cost and manufacturers support for such equipment to get 'that shot' for publication.  The 'ultimate' IQ with that Leica 'je ne said quoi' is, I assume, largely irrelevant for such work.

[jmahto]

.......

I think the R6 prism must also be better on the ground than the Sonys. Yes you can focus. But compared to the RF it's painful. Literally. I seriously get headaches often from my sony. Part is that you must focus infinity unless you have a great adapter. Nightmare in the landscape. It doesn't move, at least. But with a M you hit infinity and that's it. Nothing is faster. The SL adapter I'd expect is the same, so in a "super ff L mount" we would at least expect accurate infinity stops with M lenses.

 

.......

 

I agree that this infinity business sucks in mirrorless. With M, you don't need to focus for infinity. There is infinity stop. Purist may argue that you need to focus little before infinity to cover foreground with DOF but lets agree that in practice you simply turn a WA lens to infinity and shoot.

 

Once I was shooting this lovely landscape with my friend who was using 5DmkIII and I was using M9+28. For every shot he had to make sure his AF locks on something infinity. At some point he commented on how I can shoot so much faster!

 

https://500px.com/photo/182170967/panamint-sand-dunes-by-j-m

[chris_tribble]

I agree that this infinity business sucks in mirrorless. With M, you don't need to focus for infinity. There is infinity stop.

Spot on! The SL with M glass threw up this problem for me so many times!

[John Black]

I have a theory that the "right" number MP for an EVF to be "good" user experience is a ratio of the camera's MP count.  The SL has a 4.41 MP EVF paired with a with 24 MP sensor, so a ratio of 4.41 MP  / 24 MP = 18.37%.  Basically the EVF is relaying 18.37% of what the sensor is seeing.  My math is a bit wonky because the EVFs are counting "dots" and not MP, but I think the concepts holds true.

 

With the A7rII and the ratio isn't so nice.  2.36 MP / 42 MP = 5.6%.  EEK...!...  I'm very skeptical of the X1D - that's 2.36 MP / 50 MP = 4.7%.  There aren't many X1D user reports yet, but a couple people have written it's about the same at the A7rII.  

 

My guess is that the magic ratio is 25%.  So a 24 MP would have a 6 MP EVF or thereabouts.  I know there are other considerations such as the EVF's DR, its refresh rate, how auto-gain is handled, etc.  I think the SL's EVF optical magnification is about the most I can handle - any more and I would have a hard time seeing corners & edges.

 

A noticed the new Panny GH5 has the 3.68 MP EVF, so that should be a nice user experience (3.68 / 20 = 18.4%).

[pgk]

Once I was shooting this lovely landscape with my friend who was using 5DmkIII and I was using M9+28. For every shot he had to make sure his AF locks on something infinity.

 

If I'm shooting landscapes at a 'fixed' f-stop on my Canons, I focus then switch the lens to MF so effectively locking the focus. Works fine as long as I remember to switch AF back on after (easy to not do on w/as).

 

I never think in such terms on the M because its intuitive to check focus every time.

[cirke]

I have a theory that the "right" number MP for an EVF to be "good" user experience is a ratio of the camera's MP count.  The SL has a 4.41 MP EVF paired with a with 24 MP sensor, so a ratio of 4.41 MP  / 24 MP = 18.37%.  Basically the EVF is relaying 18.37% of what the sensor is seeing.  My math is a bit wonky because the EVFs are counting "dots" and not MP, but I think the concepts holds true.

 

With the A7rII and the ratio isn't so nice.  2.36 MP / 42 MP = 5.6%.  EEK...!...  I'm very skeptical of the X1D - that's 2.36 MP / 50 MP = 4.7%.  There aren't many X1D user reports yet, but a couple people have written it's about the same at the A7rII.  

 

My guess is that the magic ratio is 25%.  So a 24 MP would have a 6 MP EVF or thereabouts.  I know there are other considerations such as the EVF's DR, its refresh rate, how auto-gain is handled, etc.  I think the SL's EVF optical magnification is about the most I can handle - any more and I would have a hard time seeing corners & edges.

 

A noticed the new Panny GH5 has the 3.68 MP EVF, so that should be a nice user experience (3.68 / 20 = 18.4%).

 

the EVF on M240 works perfectly, I'd like to have a better EVF but I shall not buy a new camera only for this reason

[jonoslack]

If I was a sports shooter or spent all my time covering political events, first choice would be DSLR + f2.8 24-70 / 70-200 + f4 200-400 if I was really serious!.  These are the work horses - but there would be always be an M with a 35 cron in the bag...

 

Hmm - well, I'd have said that until recently - but I've been trying out the new Olympus OMD E-M1 mark ii, the f2.8 triumvirate (9-18, 12-40, 40-150) plus the 300f4 (and the 12-200 f4 as an all rounder) are all flawless optically - at all apertures and all focal lengths, not something you can say for the dSLR zooms. Of course, the smaller sensor means larger depth of field - but for most of these purposes that's an advantage rather than otherwise, and the light gathering power is the same. It's only 20mp . . but then so are the professional dSLR cameras.

 

With phase detect the AF is now lighting fast, with much less lag than a dSLR - and the insane image stablisation is wonderful if you have a static subject (e.g. 2 second exposure at 200mm equivalent), Virtually silent automatic shutter - silent electronic shutter, 60 fps if you want it, total weather sealing, dSLR quality tracking and 4k video which really works - and with the image stabilisation on the 12-100 it really looks like steady cam - even when handheld. 

 

It's a cracking kit if your primary intent is to 'get that image'. The whole lot will fit into a small bag. Olympus's service in the UK is second to none - I had a body picked up by DHL, fixed within 4 days and returned by DHL with no charge.

 

Me? I'd rather shoot with an M any day (just like you would Chris) - but I can't imagine ever going back to flapping mirrors again!

 

All the best

Jono

[chris_tribble]

the EVF on M240 works perfectly, I'd like to have a better EVF but I shall not buy a new camera only for this reason

Blackouts? Horrible shutter lag? A focus point you can't move? While I agree it's not a disaster, there are so many ways it can be improved... If Leica doesn't manage to make the EVF usable on the M10 then they may well have a lemon on their hands.  I look forward to the various reviews that I'm sure are being finalised as we witter on here .  I'm not expecting something as good as the SL's, but I will be bitterly disappointed if we don't have something that makes 18-21 fast enough to be usable in reportage situations, and accurate enough to make focusing long lenses easier.

[mmradman]

the EVF on M240 works perfectly, I'd like to have a better EVF but I shall not buy a new camera only for this reason

Works perfectly? One of us must be living in parallel universe.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

5 days to go

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonoslack]

5 days to go

 

5 days to what Neil? 

[jaapv]

Works perfectly? One of us must be living in parallel universe.

I don't think so. It may not be the best EVF out there nowadays and certainly does not compare to the SL or even T, but it does the job. The only functional niggle is the lack of off-centre magnification.