thighslapper Posted January 19, 2017 Share #21 Posted January 19, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Erwin is ALWAYS very sober on the subject...... ..... in many ways that is why his opinions are very valuable, as he is rarely prone to hype and the usual GAS excitability. Just as he always points out that all current Leica lenses are at an optical point of development where any improvement would not be noticed in practice, so, rather sadly, camera improvements are always depressingly marginal in reality.... and often at the cost of losing some previous functionality. Having said that, Leica would never sell anything if you swallowed everything he says verbatim .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 Hi thighslapper, Take a look here Leica M10 vs M240, M9, M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
UliWer Posted January 19, 2017 Share #22 Posted January 19, 2017 I have started a google spread sheet with a comparision table. Anyone with this link can edit so you can add (or correct) if something is wrong: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XsQ_g9n3t_5ewJqctEAu7VvqFfzrc1wu4_9St2k5r1c/edit?usp=sharing The sizes may be taken from the published specs by Leica, but they are not valuable to compare the depth of the bodies. 37mm for the M8/M9 is right if you measure just the top at the space between the finder and the window for the rangefinder. Though all bodies have parts which stick out: the display, the plastic ring around the ocular and the leavers in front. With these parts i measure more than 43mm for the M8/M9. I have no M(240) or any of its variants, so i cannot measure them. For the film bodies MP/M7/M-A the specs by Leica say "38mm". Though everybody knows that the film bodies are not 1 mm thicker than M8/M9. The measurements of the film bodies include all protruding parts, so the comparison must be 38mm to 43mm. The film bodies tops are just approx. 33mm The specs for the M10 now say "38mm" again. Of course I have not had a chance yet to measure an M10. Though from all we hear I am sure the measurement for the M10 applies to protrusions like for the film bodies and not just the top. So either we compare top depth 37mm for M8/M9 to 33(?)mm for M10, or 43mm for M8/M9 to 38mm for M10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HubertusBigend Posted January 19, 2017 Share #23 Posted January 19, 2017 I have started a google spread sheet with a comparision table. Anyone with this link can edit so you can add (or correct) if something is wrong: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XsQ_g9n3t_5ewJqctEAu7VvqFfzrc1wu4_9St2k5r1c/edit?usp=sharing As a major point of interest (and main selling point) for the M10 is the camera's dimensions would be good to crowd source actual measurements (weight & dimensions) for the previous cameras. The M10 is the first digital M Leica to be marketed by Leica as being the same size as the film M cameras, marketing images compare it directly to the M4 and official specs place it at 1mm deeper, with other dimensions almost matching the M7 / M6 TTL. However official measuring methodology seems to be inconsistent, in particular for the M8 & M9, not allowing for direct useful comparisons. Dimensions most commonly quoted for the M8 / M9 / M-E are both: 139 × 80 × 37mm (and listed in this google doc). We see below that those are almost the same as the film cameras, with the critical dimension, the depth, being thinner ! Clearly this isn't the case, the M8 / M9 / M-E were all much thicker cameras so I just wanted to finally debunk this as I keep seeing this info recycled when it clearly is incorrect. For comparison here are the film camera dimensions W x H x D (from official sources) : MP: 138 × 77 × 38 mm M4/M6: 138 × 77 × 38 mm M6 TTL: 138 × 79.5 × 38 mm M7: 138 × 79.5 × 38 mm M8/M9/M-E: 139 × 80 × 37 mm (from official sources) M10 : 139 × 80 × 39 mm I can confirm using a digital vernier caliper my 1985 M6 classic is : 138mm wide (excluding strap lugs) 77mm high (from bottom plate to top, excluding angled winder on M6) 38mm depth (approx at widest point: ISO selector to lens release cowl*. measuring ISO to frameline selector will add slightly more depth) *Where one would actually hold the M6 in use it is thinner, i.e. back door to front is 34mm, and it's 36mm if battery door is included. Top plate of the M6/M4 is 33.5mm deep (excluding eye piece, flash socket, logo dot etc) The M10 is being promoted using this dimension, top plate depth coming in at 33.75mm --------------------------- Images found online comparing the M8/9 with the film Ms clearly show that the digital cameras are indeed much thicker, and users of both will confirm (and have complained) the M8/9 were much larger cameras. Equally the size difference between the M8/9 and M typ 240/262 seems to be negligible visually and in handling, and not the extremes the dimensions quoted present. Top view image comparing the M9-P with the M8 and M6: https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevieraveon/7147063635 Top view image comparing the M typ 240 with the M9 and M6 : https://www.flickr.com/photos/boozooz/15873495901 (M9 and M 240 appear very similar in size here) Top view of M typ 240 with M6: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/50d0bee7e4b07abde4169be1/t/539b5229e4b06e3875a3e038/1402688043137/ Lastly the bottom of the M typ 262 compared with the M9 : http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5177c8d1e4b084b94e4b5c0e/t/5183a805e4b0046126d1462c/1367582728975/KJD_0939.jpg (M9 appears thicker due to it's widest point, the control pad, being of greater depth than the 262s. Otherwise appear very similar) --------- I also own a M typ 262. Official dimensions are stated as W x H x D : 139 × 80 × 42 mm (for both M typ 240 & 262) I can confirm, using a digital vernier caliper my camera is: 42mm deep (from thumb rest to lens mount) 138.5mm wide (excluding lugs, 139mm wide when including base plate retainer) 81mm high (base to top plate) Top plate is 38mm deep (41.2mm deep at thumb rest) Thickness of the area one would grip the camera, with right hand, in use is between 36.7 - 38.7mm thickness --------- I suspect the official / circulated dimensions of the M8/9's thickness/depth (37mm) aren't the camera's actual / widest dimensions but perhaps relate to the top plate or where one would grip the camera which would make sense as it puts it closer to the M262 actual dimensions above. Edit : as confirmed by UliWer Perhaps this is an error, perhaps Leica fudged the dims when introducing the M8 ? The methodology for measuring the film Ms and the M240/262 seems to be about the same, i.e. much more honest and mostly taken from maximum values. Leica M10 dimensions are quoted at: 139 × 80 × 39mm As mentioned before top plate thickness of 33.75mm mentioned in marketing materials seems to exclude thumb grip. A marketing image seems to suggest that it matches the M4 in depth dimensions, a first for a digital M : https://www.instagram.com/p/BPbJwQPD6RM/?tagged=leicam10 see also: https://www.instagram.com/p/BPcS5n5AsBc/ https://www.instagram.com/p/BPbRH0vBGyW/ Lastly Leica M10 & Leica M typ 240 : https://www.instagram.com/p/BPbuFm7glOA/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 19, 2017 Share #24 Posted January 19, 2017 Frankly, I don't give such importance to this question of dimensions : time to time, happens to me to take in my hands my M3 M4... ok I FEEL the difference with my M240... but on field I think that practically the Handling is, let'say, "the same"... the real difference is that OPERATION is all another matter, but this is due to digital in itself and its controls, which of course impose different gestures... and some important flexibilities (one for all...changing ISO sensitivity) that simply didn't exist with film: indeed the attitude of Handling has been the main driver to make me switch to digital only when a M camera was made available : I have Always LIKED to use such a tool... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmx_2 Posted January 19, 2017 Share #25 Posted January 19, 2017 Like I said, it's an open document so feel free to edit:). I would also like to have some comparing pictures Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M28 Posted January 19, 2017 Author Share #26 Posted January 19, 2017 We need to mention something about gorilla glass, I understood that the latest version of gorilla glass is superior to sapphire. Am I correct in my understanding? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted January 20, 2017 Share #27 Posted January 20, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) We need to mention something about gorilla glass, I understood that the latest version of gorilla glass is superior to sapphire. Am I correct in my understanding? I've had my wrist watch (with sapphire glass) for 25 years, wearing it everyday, and have treated it like crap, banging it and dropping it against all sorts of material. Not a single scratch. I doubt gorilla glass comes close in terms of scratch resistance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted January 20, 2017 Share #28 Posted January 20, 2017 I got used to the thickness of the M240, just as I got used to doing without the frameline preview. And after 45 years I'm used to the scanty eye relief of M cameras. I wear glasses and am still able to press my face against the eyepiece enough to use the 28mm frames on the rare occasions I use that focal length. None of the other feature changes of the M10 matter to me. I shoot with 2 bodies, so because the M10 uses a different EVF, battery and charger, upgrading only one of my bodies would mean traveling with more gear...something I do not wish to do. Changing up both bodies doubles the cost of upgrading. What pleases me most about the M10 is seeing that Leica is not abandoning the concept of a mechanical range-viewfinder. It means that if in a few years my M240's become uneconomical to repair, there will be a viable path for me to stay with the kind of camera I have enjoyed my entire photographic life. So bravo to Leica for coming up with a winner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 20, 2017 Share #29 Posted January 20, 2017 I got used to the thickness of the M240, just as I got used to doing without the frameline preview. And after 45 years I'm used to the scanty eye relief of M cameras. I wear glasses and am still able to press my face against the eyepiece enough to use the 28mm frames on the rare occasions I use that focal length. None of the other feature changes of the M10 matter to me. I shoot with 2 bodies, so because the M10 uses a different EVF, battery and charger, upgrading only one of my bodies would mean traveling with more gear...something I do not wish to do. Changing up both bodies doubles the cost of upgrading. What pleases me most about the M10 is seeing that Leica is not abandoning the concept of a mechanical range-viewfinder. It means that if in a few years my M240's become uneconomical to repair, there will be a viable path for me to stay with the kind of camera I have enjoyed my entire photographic life. So bravo to Leica for coming up with a winner.+ 1 on every point... except that there is another feature change that (in theory) matters to me... the better EVF... and probably the ISO upgrade : don't love to go beyond 2500 on M 240, and admit that sometime would like to go safe at, say, 6400 or around... expecially when using my beloved long focals (this of course matters also the EVF usage...): and endorse completely your last statement : I'll go on with M240... I am comforted that there is an excellent alternative in case of need (use 1 body only) ... while waiting with curiosity and no urgency what the Leica guys will made in the next 2 years or so... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmx_2 Posted January 20, 2017 Share #30 Posted January 20, 2017 I accidentally made a mistake when I set the rights. Now it's possible to edit:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archiver Posted January 21, 2017 Share #31 Posted January 21, 2017 I've loved my M9 since I bought it in early 2010, with a few caveats. With the announcement of the M10, I'm glad I skipped the M240. 1. The M7 feels just that much better in the hand than the M9, and that's coming from someone who bought a M7 AFTER the M9. The Q and X 113 feel much better to me as well. The slimmer body of the M10 should do the trick, haptics-wise. 2. The M9 shutter, although more quiet than my 5D Mark II (which has been lovingly nicknamed, "Clunk") still has that annoying KRT-tok-ffzzzhht sound. By comparison, the Ricoh GXR M-mount module is the epitome of discretion. The M10's new shutter is another reason to make the change. 3. Sensor issues. The M9's sensor is prone to corrosion, and although Leica will fix this free of charge, it does concern me, as I'm about to send in my M9 for sensor issues. The M10 should have no problems in that regard. 4. Auto white balance. Call me lazy, but I shoot with AWB most of the time. I'm often moving to different lighting environments and taking manual WB often interrupts the flow. 5. Lack of video is a mixed bag. On one hand, I shoot personal video almost as much as I shoot still images, and being able to shoot decent video with a small and superb stills camera would be great. On the other hand, my personal video needs are well covered by Panasonic m43 cameras, and the GM1 is as smalls as many pocket cameras. If I'm out with the M9, the Panasonic GM1 is in my bag anyway, so it makes no difference. 6. The new rangefinder with greater eye relief is very much welcome, as I shoot a lot of 28mm and wider. Having said all of this, I paid more for the M9 than I have for any other camera purchase with the intention of using it for at least 10 years. It's now coming on to seven years, which has been long enough to see the introduction of the M240, MM240 and M262. Given that the M240 is still very much a viable camera four years on, I could easily wait another three years and get my self-imposed ten years out of the M9, and have a reasonably cheaper M10 by then. Not what Leica would want to hear, but that's just me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted January 21, 2017 Share #32 Posted January 21, 2017 As a major point of interest (and main selling point) for the M10 is the camera's dimensions would be good to crowd source actual measurements (weight & dimensions) for the previous cameras. The M10 is the first digital M Leica to be marketed by Leica as being the same size as the film M cameras, marketing images compare it directly to the M4 and official specs place it at 1mm deeper, with other dimensions almost matching the M7 / M6 TTL. However official measuring methodology seems to be inconsistent, in particular for the M8 & M9, not allowing for direct useful comparisons. Dimensions most commonly quoted for the M8 / M9 / M-E are both: 139 × 80 × 37mm (and listed in this google doc). We see below that those are almost the same as the film cameras, with the critical dimension, the depth, being thinner ! Clearly this isn't the case, the M8 / M9 / M-E were all much thicker cameras so I just wanted to finally debunk this as I keep seeing this info recycled when it clearly is incorrect. For comparison here are the film camera dimensions W x H x D (from official sources) : MP: 138 × 77 × 38 mm M4/M6: 138 × 77 × 38 mm M6 TTL: 138 × 79.5 × 38 mm M7: 138 × 79.5 × 38 mm M8/M9/M-E: 139 × 80 × 37 mm (from official sources) M10 : 139 × 80 × 39 mm I can confirm using a digital vernier caliper my 1985 M6 classic is : 138mm wide (excluding strap lugs) 77mm high (from bottom plate to top, excluding angled winder on M6) 38mm depth (approx at widest point: ISO selector to lens release cowl*. measuring ISO to frameline selector will add slightly more depth) *Where one would actually hold the M6 in use it is thinner, i.e. back door to front is 34mm, and it's 36mm if battery door is included. Top plate of the M6/M4 is 33.5mm deep (excluding eye piece, flash socket, logo dot etc) The M10 is being promoted using this dimension, top plate depth coming in at 33.75mm --------------------------- Images found online comparing the M8/9 with the film Ms clearly show that the digital cameras are indeed much thicker, and users of both will confirm (and have complained) the M8/9 were much larger cameras. Equally the size difference between the M8/9 and M typ 240/262 seems to be negligible visually and in handling, and not the extremes the dimensions quoted present. Top view image comparing the M9-P with the M8 and M6: https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevieraveon/7147063635 Top view image comparing the M typ 240 with the M9 and M6 : https://www.flickr.com/photos/boozooz/15873495901 (M9 and M 240 appear very similar in size here) Top view of M typ 240 with M6: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/50d0bee7e4b07abde4169be1/t/539b5229e4b06e3875a3e038/1402688043137/ Lastly the bottom of the M typ 262 compared with the M9 : http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5177c8d1e4b084b94e4b5c0e/t/5183a805e4b0046126d1462c/1367582728975/KJD_0939.jpg (M9 appears thicker due to it's widest point, the control pad, being of greater depth than the 262s. Otherwise appear very similar) --------- I also own a M typ 262. Official dimensions are stated as W x H x D : 139 × 80 × 42 mm (for both M typ 240 & 262) I can confirm, using a digital vernier caliper my camera is: 42mm deep (from thumb rest to lens mount) 138.5mm wide (excluding lugs, 139mm wide when including base plate retainer) 81mm high (base to top plate) Top plate is 38mm deep (41.2mm deep at thumb rest) Thickness of the area one would grip the camera, with right hand, in use is between 36.7 - 38.7mm thickness --------- I suspect the official / circulated dimensions of the M8/9's thickness/depth (37mm) aren't the camera's actual / widest dimensions but perhaps relate to the top plate or where one would grip the camera which would make sense as it puts it closer to the M262 actual dimensions above. Edit : as confirmed by UliWer Perhaps this is an error, perhaps Leica fudged the dims when introducing the M8 ? The methodology for measuring the film Ms and the M240/262 seems to be about the same, i.e. much more honest and mostly taken from maximum values. Leica M10 dimensions are quoted at: 139 × 80 × 39mm As mentioned before top plate thickness of 33.75mm mentioned in marketing materials seems to exclude thumb grip. A marketing image seems to suggest that it matches the M4 in depth dimensions, a first for a digital M : https://www.instagram.com/p/BPbJwQPD6RM/?tagged=leicam10 see also: https://www.instagram.com/p/BPcS5n5AsBc/ https://www.instagram.com/p/BPbRH0vBGyW/ Lastly Leica M10 & Leica M typ 240 : https://www.instagram.com/p/BPbuFm7glOA/ Lots of people including me think/thought the M9 was smaller than the M240. Jaapv told me they were the same. I said hey look here are the dimensions. He said they are just measuring the thumb wheel as it sticks out, which gives a bigger dimension. At first I would not believe him, LOL, but after lots of investigation, I'm pretty sure he is right. Funny thing is now at FM a long time member is arguing with me and claiming 240 is bigger (he has neither) I can't believe nobody ever put calipers on these two bodies to settle this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 21, 2017 Share #33 Posted January 21, 2017 I've loved my M9 since I bought it in early 2010... ... I could easily wait another three years and get my self-imposed ten years out of the M9, and have a reasonably cheaper M10 by then. Not what Leica would want to hear, but that's just me. + 1 with a pair of substitutions ("M240", "2013") And Leica I think has to be happy to hear... we are the customers not of today (*) but of Tomorrow .. there are short term and medium terms projections for a Company (*) (and maybe there are some glass items to consider too...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 21, 2017 Share #34 Posted January 21, 2017 ... I can't believe nobody ever put calipers on these two bodies to settle this. Not that important to me. I just assume 90% of whar Jaap says is wrong. The baseplate of my M60 doesn't come even close to fitting my Monochrom. He is right, though - it's almost imperceptible in the hands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted January 22, 2017 Share #35 Posted January 22, 2017 I measured my MM I and the top plate thickness is just under 37mm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 22, 2017 Share #36 Posted January 22, 2017 M240 is heavier and seems thicker (as least how I felt when holding it) than my M9-P and M-D. Yes, I skipped M240 because it is a heavy tank to me. I read that M10 is thinner than M240. Just wonder how it size is compared with M9-P and M-D which are definitely lighter than M240. I guess I can wait for the all black/no logo M10-P The M10 is, for all intents and purposes, feels the same weight as the M240 Its thing is to be thinner Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 22, 2017 Share #37 Posted January 22, 2017 Advancement in sensor is always welcome and I am sure M10 does better than M240. However M240's performance should not give us any anxiety... The following night shot is taken at ISO1600, f/2, 1/30s handheld. Not a very careful handheld therefore there is some shake. Look at the 1:1 crop. I can ever read the sign to "Colosseo". How much more do you need? Santa Maria in Montesanto, Piazza Del PopoloBTW: I love the 3D effect I get in this picture due to contrast. Do I need M10? No. Do I want M10? 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! 1:1 crop Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1:1 crop ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268384-leica-m10-vs-m240-m9-m8/?do=findComment&comment=3193904'>More sharing options...
hmathias Posted January 22, 2017 Share #38 Posted January 22, 2017 I have used and owned an M6 & M9, I still own a M (type 240) & an SL. I have used them all with my Leica M lenses. I loved the the feel —companionship — of the M6, M9, and SL (heavier, but still an excellent match to M lenses). I was never disappointed in any Leica product. The M 240 which I do still use regularly, I am not so crazy about. My main issue with the 240 is the lack of high level dynamic range — the bright whites to blown-out over-exposure area — goes to over-exposed white ungracefully. There is not enough separation between Zones 8-9-10 in Ansel Adams terms. The SL and M9 simply don't look "tonally strained" by extreme highlights. The M 240 often does. When using the 240, I have to protect over-exposed areas in setting my manual exposure. The M 10 seems like the answer to my dreams. I haven't seen one yet, but if it is not sensitive to blowing out whites, and is the size of my old M6 TTL, with higher ISO sensitivity, than I am very happy! All of the other things are just details. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 23, 2017 Share #39 Posted January 23, 2017 I will also be interested in latitude for highlight recovery in M10 files. My feeling is that it is a fact of life in digital and the only way is to protect highlight while shooting on any digital sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmathias Posted January 23, 2017 Share #40 Posted January 23, 2017 I will also be interested in latitude for highlight recovery in M10 files. My feeling is that it is a fact of life in digital and the only way is to protect highlight while shooting on any digital sensor. Agreed that protecting highlights is a fact of digital imaging life, but the M9 (as a CCD) was better, and the SL is really great at handling highlight overloads. Even the already posted Leica official sample JPEGs do show very good highlight rendering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.