Jump to content

Why M240 users will (not) switch to M10


jmahto

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What black outs ?? It's a rangefinder no blackouts at all not even a millisecond

I really don't get why people come on here and compare a Lieca M to dslr's or point and shoots.

Probably because all the reviewers report viewfinder blackouts when shooting with the EVF in its intended use?
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is quite possible. Design choices are compromises. The M10 appears to have been slanted towards high-ISO performance. I do not really like DXO, but this time I am really interested in their graphs.

Yes, I was aware that there was a difference in performance between the SL and Q, to bias one towards dynamic range and the other towards high ISO performance.

But the sensor of both those cameras is still superior to the M240, so it would be surprising if the new model M four years down the track could not match or surpass the dynamic range of its ancestor.

I, too, will be very interested to see the comparative characteristic curves of the sensor once they are published.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the increase in sensor performance is marginal nowadays. The main differences appear to come from developing microlenses, and Bayer filters, and the handling of the Gamma curves and expanding ISO ranges

We will have to wait for a technical breakthrough to see a progression similar to the one over the last two decades.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] What black outs ?? It's a rangefinder no blackouts at all not even a millisecond [...]

 

Of course there are not blackouts in RF mode, how could that be? I meant in EVF mode of course. One second after each shot... But i won't insist ad nauseam. The M10 is indeed a superb RF. Now this topic is about why some of us won't switch to the M10 isn't it? My main reason is once more a sluggish EVF mode. Less so than that of the M240 but enough so to dissuade me from ordering this otherwise superb camera. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the increase in sensor performance is marginal nowadays. The main differences appear to come from developing microlenses, and Bayer filters, and the handling of the Gamma curves and expanding ISO ranges

We will have to wait for a technical breakthrough to see a progression similar to the one over the last two decades.

 

Agreed.  I just don't expect a regression...

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be too idiosyncratic to mean much, but it's my current thinking so here goes:

 

If it wasn't for the emergence of the easily-portable Hasselblad and possibly Fuji larger-sensor cameras I may well have considered switching my M240 for an M10. It wouldn't have been an easy decision because without trying it out I'm not certain how much better the M10 is to use or how much better the sensor is. But the improved viewfinder(s) sound nice and the greater light-gathering capacity of the sensor is interesting since I do a lot of indoor low-light work.

 

But knowing that for a similar price two other cameras are now available that give demonstrably different results that I may well prefer, the decision is different.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This may be too idiosyncratic to mean much, but it's my current thinking so here goes:

 

If it wasn't for the emergence of the easily-portable Hasselblad and possibly Fuji larger-sensor cameras I may well have considered switching my M240 for an M10. It wouldn't have been an easy decision because without trying it out I'm not certain how much better the M10 is to use or how much better the sensor is. But the improved viewfinder(s) sound nice and the greater light-gathering capacity of the sensor is interesting since I do a lot of indoor low-light work.

 

But knowing that for a similar price two other cameras are now available that give demonstrably different results that I may well prefer, the decision is different.  

(My highlight).

That's a summary with respect to the final image - one can always say that. You could just as easily include a Sony A7rii, Phase One etc etc in your list. How many of us buy a camera based purely on IQ, ignoring all considerations of interface, speed of operation, ergonomics, system completeness, or versatility? (Add your own criteria). The decision has always been different.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is very difficult in this day and age selling cameras. It's true, we succeeded needs long ago. Frankly my M9 has enough dynamic range and ISO for me, I only find it short on resolution - that is just something I personally really do need, but it's too much to expect from such a camera and brand. But I think it has got to the point that while people want more and more, they are probably not actually buying it.

 

Part of me sees this new development or undevelopment as it may be as Leica taking the very clever marketing route, or easy way out with this, using their past to rehash a current design in a way that will keep people buying it. Using that as a paradigm not to evolve it and probably just to shelve the M apart from minor updates.

 

Finding the resources to develop the M-240 is too much compared to what its worth to the company. I see something like dropping things like tethering as a method to stop leading people like me down the garden path. Either way I am locked out and not particularly enamoured by it.

 

It's pretty obvious Leica sees the future as the SL which is not a future for me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is very difficult in this day and age selling cameras. It's true, we succeeded needs long ago. Frankly my M9 has enough dynamic range and ISO for me, I only find it short on resolution - that is just something I personally really do need, but it's too much to expect from such a camera and brand. But I think it has got to the point that while people want more and more, they are probably not actually buying it.

 

Part of me sees this new development or undevelopment as it may be as Leica taking the very clever marketing route, or easy way out with this, using their past to rehash a current design in a way that will keep people buying it. Using that as a paradigm not to evolve it and probably just to shelve the M apart from minor updates.

 

Finding the resources to develop the M-240 is too much compared to what its worth to the company. I see something like dropping things like tethering as a method to stop leading people like me down the garden path. Either way I am locked out and not particularly enamoured by it.

 

It's pretty obvious Leica sees the future as the SL which is not a future for me.

I doubt that retaining USB tethering and video would have required much R&D - I think these were deliberate design decisions for the market they are aiming at.

I don't know enough to say whether a higher resolution sensor would have required much R&D - clearly some. I think it's the same processor in the S, so they know they can handle the extra data. It may be that more pixels would require more R&D for heat dissipation.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

(My highlight).

That's a summary with respect to the final image - one can always say that. You could just as easily include a Sony A7rii, Phase One etc etc in your list. How many of us buy a camera based purely on IQ, ignoring all considerations of interface, speed of operation, ergonomics, system completeness, or versatility? (Add your own criteria). The decision has always been different.

 

 

Well, it's even more different now!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Retinaing USB in a much thinner body would have taken further cost. The M240 video, while very useful was pretty terrible with some of the worst ever rolling shutter. That needed a lot of R+D. In the beginning I felt it was just there as a side effect of CMOS, which was probably right, but in the end the video was a useful thing within it's envelope. But considering they launched an PL cine mount for M it shows it was and at a stretch still is a consideration. Who knows.

 

Given how good the M lenses are it's such a shame to see this end in this way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be too idiosyncratic to mean much, but it's my current thinking so here goes:

 

If it wasn't for the emergence of the easily-portable Hasselblad and possibly Fuji larger-sensor cameras I may well have considered switching my M240 for an M10. It wouldn't have been an easy decision because without trying it out I'm not certain how much better the M10 is to use or how much better the sensor is. But the improved viewfinder(s) sound nice and the greater light-gathering capacity of the sensor is interesting since I do a lot of indoor low-light work.

 

But knowing that for a similar price two other cameras are now available that give demonstrably different results that I may well prefer, the decision is different.  

 

I too am keeping an ear to the ground on the X1D, but I have to say, with some diminishing interest. But, in the meantime bought an SL with the lower range zoom primarily for the autofocus, and which I am really pleased with. I kept hold of the M240 just in case I did not get on with the SL.

 

I cannot seeing myself replacing the M240 with the M10 just for the hi iso. If I did replace it for whatever reason, with what is currently available, it would probably be another SL.

​​

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am bit behind with my 2c worth why I am not considering switching from M240 to M10.

 

My camera of choice is M246.

I will use colour in good light or on tripod only so M10 offers no real advantages.

My focus method of choice is RF, EVF blackout improvement over EVF2 are marginal, moving focus point is welcome improvement but not worth upgrade.

Happy with limited RF, for precise 28mm lens framing I use external optical 21/28 viewfinder.

24Mp is still 24Mp.

I find girth of M240/246 comfortable.

Battery size/capacity of 240 was improvement over M9, reversing to smaller size and capacity for cosmetical reasons is not appealing to me.

Pound has dropped by some margin, paying more for lesser camera (to me) keeps me content to wait for M with real improvements over M240, one that provides EVF experience equivalent to SL601 or better.

 

Finally, just announced Fuji GFX50 seems to provide mini MF solution with top class EVF and probably good third party lens compatibility due to focal plane shutter and short registry for extra few hundred quid over M10, life is good.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Messy typo in the topic. Should read:

Why M240 users will (not) switch to M10

Can someone please correct it.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

Lets keep GAS out for this discussion.

 

In practice if you never shoot in very very low light then the advantage of M10 is marginal (better haptics, better EVF, both marginal). Combine that with negatives of no video, no aperture data in exif, no USB, less battery life.

 

Why would you switch?

 

The average aged M 240 users will not switch. .....This feels like a deja vu... ;)

 

 

As for me... I wait until I feel this camera. I have learned my lesson in 2013 when I thought I would not buy a M 240, but I will probably buy a Leica M 10, maybe as a second body, if I am not dead or broke, to cite MJH...:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/196962-the-average-aged-wont-buy-a-m240/?p=2225374

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, I am waiting for a short while before trading in my 3 year old M240. However, the deal will rely on a third party manufacturer, not Leica!

The MAIN features that I want that the M10 addresses:

1: moveable live view zoom point

2: Improved EVF with no secondary port and possibility of improved versions in the future

I really like the ISO dial...all main control items now set-able without the camera switched on.

I'm less than happy about the loss of the live view spirit level (hopefully rectified through firmware)

The slimmer design may be welcomed by the film M nostalgia brigade, but my large hands actually feel more comfortable around the M240 compared to my M6 classic.

I have really grown to enjoy and use the M240 as a travel/landscape camera and don't want to go to a bigger package, particularly when out in the hills.

I LOVE the rangefinder experience and the compact form of the M240 (compared to my D800 and 16-35 combo), but the lack of the two new features of the M10  irritate me intensely!

If the M240 remains a viable line, then as mentioned in other responses, there may be a replacement more suitable for my needs in the future. I have no desire to rely solely on an SL, as that EVF, however capable, would spoil the RFexperience of the M. I also have no desire to lump both M and SL around together.

This is a great shame, as I really wanted to get this new M10. It may yet happen, but as I mentioned above, my purchase of an M10 will await the RRS L-plate. Until then, I will continue to enjoy the M240.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The M10 does not suddenly make the M240 a bad camera., after all it's hardly any time since the forum columns were extolling its virtues.

When I'm still able to win very competitive club print competitions with images from a Nikon D70 why should I be worrying about a bit more low light capability and increased dynamic range with the M10. Yes of course there other features that would be good to have but they are certainly not going to improve my ability to take a decent photograph.

Perhaps we get too hung up on camera specs rather than concentrating on taking photographs.

Edited by Clactonian
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re post #59, too true. The M240 is more than capable, and vastly more capable than most of us using Leica. A new camera with increased ISO and DR isn't suddenly going to transport individuals to becomming better photographers, you either have the eye or not and technology isn't going make up for the lack of ability. Personally I'm spending more of my money on purchasing books, plus the odd training course, hoping to improve.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is bashing the rangefinder.

 

There are some who understand the advantages and the disadvantages and choose other cameras they feel are more suitable for the application they have in mind... and thats fine. The rangefinder is FAR better in other situations. In the past, many people would choose both, an SLR for one type of application and the rangefinder when they had other priorities. 

 

But this is pre-digital thinking.

 

Nowadays it is possible to get both.. but maybe not to the standard some of us expect right now. But we are not too far away from being able to realise both without compromising all that much. Thats why currently I would prefer an OVF and wait for an EVF that is good enough for me not to worry about it at all. The SL is very nearly there already. Good enough to allow me the benefit of a second body to complement my existing M or an M10... not good enough to replace it entirely. (Although I'm not sure if I would ever want to do that anyway...).

 

Give it five years and these conversations will look very dated. It just requires a better understanding of what is being proposed and a mind open enough to accept it, your personal decision is then subject to it meeting or exceeding your own personal expectations.

 

Me, I am keeping my M240P. The M10 looks a great camera, but it doesn't offer enough for me to change. 

Edited by Bill Livingston
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see an awful lot of rationalizing, for movement in both directions, in all these threads about the M10. Nattering on about doubts about the DR, the base gamma, the lack of video, the EVF ... There's an awful lot of "first world" problems being expressed. 

 

My own feelings are pretty simple: I think Leica has done an excellent job with the development of the M10 as successor to the M/M-P typ 240. The points in Jono's and others' reviews that attract my attention are the better viewfinder optics, the improved sensor, and the improved internal IO performance. These are all real and substantive improvements. The later, higher-spec EVF is a plus as well, as is WiFi, the physical ISO dial, the thinner body are all pluses, as is the 50g less weight. Loss of video capture and a USB port option, while obviously essential to some, are not a big deal to me. The slightly smaller battery nets a small decrease of photos per charge most likely, still not a big deal to me (although the notion of buying two more spare batteries at $200 apiece is). 

 

But overall, the viewfinder, sensor, and improvements to the internal IO are the big hitters for me. When a replacement for the M-D typ 262 incorporating these features comes around, I'll buy it. Not before, because that's what I want in an M now. 

 

If I were to, for some reason, decide to sell my SL and all my R lenses ... then I'd need a color body with the EVF for ultrawide viewfinder, copy work, macro, and my occasional long lens work. THEN I'd sell the M-P for the M10 as the M10 is a better camera for my uses. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...