Jump to content

Why M240 users will (not) switch to M10


jmahto

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Surely the fact that the M10 with the Type 020 Visoflex (as used with the Leica T and X Type 113) offers a much improved live view experience, particularly when using e.g. long R lenses, is a more than 'marginal improvement' for those preferring a relatively compact FF Leica camera? 

 

dunk 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the M10 is very smart, but have only bought my beautiful M-P240 end of last year. Love the size factor of the M10, as I miss my M7 a bit. I also would welcome the extra low-light ability of the new sensor. If it is as good as my SL, I wold appreciate that sensor a lot. I am curious as to how quick and responsive the camera will be!

 

The bettered electronic viewfinder is not so important for me: SL is a dream...

 

I will probably buy the M10, but will wait for an M-P version... Need to use my M240 first! And I really love my M-P 240!

 

 

Similar situation for me.  I purchased a new M240 M-P just this past December at a price of about 60% of the cameras retail price.  The improvements of the new M10 are attractive, but the M240 M-P is fine as is for my shooting needs.  Making a change to the M10 would also include buying a new EVF, and another battery or two.  

 

I'll be following along as members post their experience with the new M.  For now, I'll wait and see.     

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the fact that the M10 with the Type 020 Visoflex (as used with the Leica T and X Type 113) offers a much improved live view experience, particularly when using e.g. long R lenses, is a more than 'marginal improvement' for those preferring a relatively compact FF Leica camera? 

 

dunk 

It still has that 1 second lag, which is my main gripe with the EVF2, so I question the "much improved" part. I am not using an EVF because the view is so pretty.

So,my checklist:

EVF2 Focus accurately - check

EVF2 Frame correctly -check

EVF2 Image quality - so-so

EVF2 Moving focus point - no

EVF2 Lag - 1 second

 

Visoflex020 Focus accuracy - check

Visoflex020 Frame correctly -check

Visoflexo020 Image quality - quite nice

Visoflex020 Moving focus point -???

Visoflex020 Lag - 1 second

 

I think the functional improvement is marginal.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder if I were buying a Leica today if I'd take the M10 or stay with the M 262.  Live view is not important to me.   The ISO dial does nothing for me one way or the other.  WiFi is a negative.   So is the smaller battery.   On the other hand a base ISO of 100 and less noise at higher ISO are things I like.

 

Glad I don't have to make the decision.  I'm happy with my M 262.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

It still has that 1 second lag, which is my main gripe with the EVF2, so I question the "much improved" part. I am not using an EVF because the view is so pretty.

So,my checklist:

EVF2 Focus accurately - check

EVF2 Frame correctly -check

EVF2 Image quality - so-so

EVF2 Moving focus point - no

EVF2 Lag - 1 second

 

Visoflex020 Focus accuracy - check

Visoflex020 Frame correctly -check

Visoflexo020 Image quality - quite nice

Visoflex020 Moving focus point -???

Visoflex020 Lag - 1 second

 

I think the functional improvement is marginal.

 

My comments inline:

 

Visoflex020 Focus accuracy - check

Visoflex020 Frame correctly -check

Visoflexo020 Image quality - quite nice  <<<< Image quality allows judging focus without magnifying image and without peaking (From Jono's review comments)

Visoflex020 Moving focus point -??? <<<<<< Yes. I read someplace. Pretty confident

Visoflex020 Lag - 1 second <<<<<<<<< Jono says that it is improved enough that he started using it with R. He had stopped using EVF2 on M240

 

Therefore I think it is more than marginal (but not perfect) improvement.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It still has that 1 second lag, which is my main gripe with the EVF2, so I question the "much improved" part. I am not using an EVF because the view is so pretty.

So,my checklist:

EVF2 Focus accurately - check

EVF2 Frame correctly -check

EVF2 Image quality - so-so

EVF2 Moving focus point - no

EVF2 Lag - 1 second

 

Visoflex020 Focus accuracy - check

Visoflex020 Frame correctly -check

Visoflexo020 Image quality - quite nice

Visoflex020 Moving focus point -???

Visoflex020 Lag - 1 second

 

I think the functional improvement is marginal.

I got the impression from jono's article that the blackout on the M10 was about a third of what it is on the M240. ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

The blackout of the EVF on the T drove me to distraction. I had thought this was more to do with the processor than the EVF itself - the answer to that question might be critical. In all honesty, I don't think I'd get the M10 to use the add-on EVF, and that would seem to me to be a missed opportunity. The EVF on the SL is so good, I'd find the T20 EVF frustrating.

 

The other consideration, though, is that the blackout will only be relevant for taking pictures where timing is critical. For most photography, a blackout of a second or so might not matter. When would people need to use the EVF over the built in optical viewfinder?

 

I was using the T with long lenses - photographing my son kitesurfing was hit and miss with the blackout. Not an issue with the SL.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can M10 do 5fps with LV/EVF on? If yes then it could be used for action (with manual focusing).

Good question - depends on the action, I guess. For my needs, the action isn't that fast. As Dirk commented on another thread, timing is more important than machine gunning, but waiting to find the subject has gone is ...disconcerting!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am an M (Typ 240) user, and I will switch to the M10. Main reason: improved viewfinder. Secondary reason: improved high-ISO performance and better responsiveness.

 

Slimmer body and direct ISO dial are nice-to-have but no reason to switch. GPS in accessory finder (rather than in body or grip) is a ¶ain-in-the-a$$ but viewfinder improvement takes precedence.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I would switch:

 

Form factor - wouldn't have bothered me with my 240... until I got an M7 and then M4 & M3. I simply love those smaller bodies and think the size of the M10 is fantastic. Big plus for me.

 

Better EVF - I do a lot of theatre photography where my primary lens choice is 85mm Canon FD f1.2L. I'd love no blackout ideally, but cutting the current blackout by 2/3rds would be extremely welcome.

 

Better ISO - I usually go no higher than 1600, maybe 2000 on the 240 at a real push, but for theatre photography higher ISO would be invaluable.

 

Bigger buffer - I'm not looking for 'machine gun' speeds, but I do hit the buffers occasionally and bigger would be better.

 

Intervalometer - I occasionally do time lapses so that would be appealing

 

ISO dial - initially didn't like it due to aesthetics, but can now see huge benefits, especially the way it has been implemented.

 

Improved OVF - being a glasses wearer I'd love a wider POV.

 

Why I would hesitate to switch:

 

Smaller batteries - love the 240's capacity and would miss that.

 

Video - controversial I know, but I do use it occasionally and it is the only camera I currently own capable of producing that kind of quality.

 

Coloured focus peaking - minor point but I do change colours according to ease of use for certain backgrounds.

 

No black paint version - I do love the gradual brassing of my 240, although I'm sure I'll not appreciate it so much when it comes to resale!

 

Things I'm not bothered about:

 

Wifi - really, really not bothered

 

Movable focus point - again, irrelevant to me.

 

So will I switch? Right now, no. To be honest mostly due to lack of funds! But I am more than happy with the 240 and it is more than capable. An M10 would definitely make my life easier, but I am happy to wait and eventually pick up a second hand M10P a few years down the line.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What can i say? I can live sans video and shutter speeds faster than 1/4000s, even if much cheaper cameras have been doing better for many years. My modest Nikon D70 could do 1/8000s more than ten years ago... But what about the absence of silent mode? And how to explain the lame blackouts inbetween shots? Such blackouts can be reduced to almost nothing by disabling autoreview on modern cameras like my Fuji X-E2, Sony A7s mod and even my little Panasonic LX100 (clone of Leica DL109). Incredible that a camera like the M10 can be crippled this way...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The M10 addresses the wishes of a substantial group of users at the price of some functionality.

If one does not belong to this group and cares about the functions that got lost or were only marginally upgraded or lost, it is not a sensible upgrade.

 

Taking myself as an example,  I was never worried about the size of the M, use the EVF mainly for very long lenses and am mostly annoyed by the lag, have no problems with the viewfinder as I shoot without spectacles without focusing issues, rarely go into the ISO menu and am not a specific low-light shooter There  is little incentive to spend thousands of dollars.

However, there are plenty of users that craved for a smaller,  low-light more film-M like camera who will happily upgrade.

 

As for the expected "better" sensor, I defy anyone to show a significant superiority on a post-processed print.

 

On a side-note, I'm not sure whether  a hypothetical QL (although interesting) will be an universal alternative. Personally I prefer to look at the scene in front of me, not at the image projected by the lens, except in extremely narrow-DOF situations in tele and macro. And in the latter case the market segment is not empty - at lower prices and excellent quality.

 

The new sensor and the expected higher (or at least hoped for) level of printed image quality is a significant selling point of the M10 for me; it's interesting that jaapv doubts that there will be a significant improvement there. 

 

Other positives of the M10 that interest me are the improved viewfinder, the upgraded rear LCD and higher usable ISO.  The fact that the M10 will not use the same battery as the M240 cameras is a major annoyance and makes me wonder if the M10 battery will have the staying power of the M240 battery. 

 

Lastly, I have to wonder what dealers who have M240s and M-P 240s on their shelves are going to do with them since the M10 will sell the same price as the M240 and for $400 USD less than the M-P.  Will Leica provide some sort of incentive for buyers of the M240 and M-P to prevent dealers from being stuck with them once the M10 hits dealer shelves?

 

In some ways, I'd like to get an M10 and keep my Safari M-P, but I find the typ 246 Monochrom a more interesting camera.  If I were to acquire a new M camera, it would be a Monochrom 246 rather than an M10.  That's my perspective...

Edited by Carlos Danger
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can M10 do 5fps with LV/EVF on? If yes then it could be used for action (with manual focusing).

I don't know what the M10 capability with Live View is ... but I'm certain it is not optimized as much for speed in sequence capture as the SL.

 

I have the M-P and its EVF. What I used to use the EVF for was when using wide lenses (< 28mm focal length) or lenses that were longer than about 90 mm (135, adapted 180, etc). Carrying the EVF for those situations meant carrying one clip-on viewfinder that handled a multiplicity of tasks rather than several optical finders that were less precise, it meant being able to see clearly to focus a long lens or frame with a wide lens. It extends the rangefinder a modest amount to do things that are generally out of its native competence.

 

The problem for me, once I bought the SL, is that I found all that was totally unnecessary in the rangefinder camera. The SL is more ergonomic to use with long lenses and has superior EVF performance such that I never again used a longer than 135mm lens on the M-P, and preferred the SL for use with ultra wides too because of the better framing. So my M went back to being used the way Ms were originally intended: with lenses between 35 and 90mm, not for macro or for sports so much. That's when I bought the M-D: no real need for the EVF or live view at all, rather a desire for simplicity in my rangefinder.

 

The M10's improved speed and improved EVF won't change this at all. BUT, if you happen to have only an M, the M10 can be used for a bit more versatile purposes than the earlier rangefinder cameras. That's all...

Edited by ramarren
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty expensive here. Aus$9,700 recommended retail price. (without the Viso or a spare battery)

 

More than I paid for my M-P just 2 1/2 months ago. When I got the camera, VF 2 and a spare battery for slightly less than $9,700.

 

Our dollar is pretty low at the moment.

So I won't be considering an exchange at the moment....will wait and see if it's as good as hoped for.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what the M10 capability with Live View is ... but I'm certain it is not optimized as much for speed in sequence capture as the SL.

 

I have the M-P and its EVF. What I used to use the EVF for was when using wide lenses (< 28mm focal length) or lenses that were longer than about 90 mm (135, adapted 180, etc). Carrying the EVF for those situations meant carrying one clip-on viewfinder that handled a multiplicity of tasks rather than several optical finders that were less precise, it meant being able to see clearly to focus a long lens or frame with a wide lens. It extends the rangefinder a modest amount to do things that are generally out of its native competence.

 

The problem for me, once I bought the SL, is that I found all that was totally unnecessary in the rangefinder camera. The SL is more ergonomic to use with long lenses and has superior EVF performance such that I never again used a longer than 135mm lens on the M-P, and preferred the SL for use with ultra wides too because of the better framing. So my M went back to being used the way Ms were originally intended: with lenses between 35 and 90mm, not for macro or for sports so much. That's when I bought the M-D: no real need for the EVF or live view at all, rather a desire for simplicity in my rangefinder.

 

The M10's improved speed and improved EVF won't change this at all. BUT, if you happen to have only an M, the M10 can be used for a bit more versatile purposes than the earlier rangefinder cameras. That's all...

I understand and agree to what you said about dedicated EVF camera as SL and M. However my attempt was to find out how close M10's EVF experience will be. Just now I tried EVF2 on my M240 again. I put it in continuous drive mode and shot with EVF on (at ISO 200 so that I get fast fps). Shutter kept firing at fast fps (whatever M240 is capable of) while EVF remained dark. Therefore if I am shooting action then I can shoot rapidly but I won't see what I am shooting. But when I changed to single shot mode then camera won't let me press shutter second time till black out was over. Therefore lesson is that if you want to use M EVF for rapid shooting then do it in continuous drive mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new sensor and the expected higher (or at least hoped for) level of printed image quality is a significant selling point of the M10 for me; it's interesting that jaapv doubts that there will be a significant improvement there.

 

Other positives of the M10 that interest me are the improved viewfinder, the upgraded rear LCD and higher usable ISO. The fact that the M10 will not use the same battery as the M240 cameras is a major annoyance and makes me wonder if the M10 battery will have the staying power of the M240 battery.

 

Lastly, I have to wonder what dealers who have M240s and M-P 240s on their shelves are going to do with them since the M10 will sell the same price as the M240 and for $400 USD less than the M-P. Will Leica provide some sort of incentive for buyers of the M240 and M-P to prevent dealers from being stuck with them once the M10 hits dealer shelves?

 

In some ways, I'd like to get an M10 and keep my Safari M-P, but I find the typ 246 Monochrom a more interesting camera. If I were to acquire a new M camera, it would be a Monochrom 246 rather than an M10. That's my perspective...

Yes. I may wait for the M10-p safari. That will be in 3 years I think? Until then my current safari is well loved.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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.
I am more interested in the exposure latitude, which depends on the gamma curve of the camera  than in the dynamic range which as a value hes far less importance.

 

Dynamic range is the range the camera can see from the deepest darkest shadows to the brightest highlights in the same shot. Latitude is the range within the dynamic range where we can expose and still get a usable image.
A camera with lower noise will allow you to expose darker and bring your levels up in post, this gives an increase in under exposure range.
Many cameras have a very limited over exposure latitude. This is the opposite to a film camera.
Bigger dynamic range does not always mean greater latitude.

  • Like 6
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...