Jump to content

Wrong turn for the M10?


lburn
 Share

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am puzzled by the M10. Leica market it as getting closer to the analogue M's in terms of size and handling. "Simplicity" is the key. Hence the slimmer body and "better" viewfinder, and of course the added "simplicity" of no video capability. But I wonder how many photographers who love to use a rangefinder camera actually want to be able to shoot at 5 frames per second and found 2 frames per second far too slow? Was it actually unpleasant to hold an M type 240? How many really found the ability to shoot reasonable quality video if you wanted to, a nuisance or a distraction? I use it infrequently but there are times when I am very glad it is there. From my experience with my type 240 which I have used regularly for the last three years, none of these things has been the slightest problem. But then I am not a fashion, sports or high speed wild life photographer. Maybe Leica think the M10 is for them? If so, is a rangefinder the best means of focusing? Isn't that market covered many times over with DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras with much better focusing than the M10 with EVF can ever hope to provide and with very high quality image output? For the rangefinder photographer who likes to compose and think before pressing the shutter, the M10 seems to be to be a wrong turn. I have a feeling that Leica sacrificed video simply, or at least mainly, to enable them to make the thinner body (it is of course still taller than the analogue ones). They didn't reduce weight noticeably. And I wonder if they put in the 5 frames per second just because they could do it with the new shutter. For me there is no temptation to change model and I suspect Leica could have kept their nerve and upgraded the Type 240 to the new viewfinder, shutter and EVF were it not for the pressures of marketing and the need to be seen to be doing something new as in "NEW M" that prevented this. Pity.

 

Lburn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Iburn, I don't know about your age, but I'm sort of almost retired and grown up or deformed with the M4-M6 model since 26 years, like many Leica M users are I think. Leica has to take care of his elderlies, that 's all. The M240 is not being replaced by the M10, is it? There is no turn, there is just another choice. I wonder whether the M262 is being closed now btw

Edited by otto.f
Link to post
Share on other sites

 But I wonder how many photographers who love to use a rangefinder camera actually want to be able to shoot at 5 frames per second and found 2 frames per second far too slow?

I don't use continuous as a rule, although I remember using it at least once. However, I know that Thorsten Overgaard helps his in focus rate when using his Noctilux wide open by shooting off at least three frames in a burst.

 

I gladly swap never used video for daily use thinness. Holding my M-P is OK especially using one of SWB's thumb rests, but if I then pick up my M2, the experience is wonderful. Psychologically, I will be more likely to take a camera I perceive as small on a trip.

 

I like using a rangefinder, that's why I use a rangefinder. I like the Q too, but for me, using the camera is a bit like fly fishing. I could use a spinner or a worm and have more success, but a fish caught on a fly is much more rewarding. Similarly, manually selecting shutter speed and aperture to achieve a good exposure, then coupled with manual focus...when it all comes together it is magic. The Q's speed of focus is amazing, and I enjoy the results from the Q, but the same shot with the M10/M240 would give me more satisfaction despite the results being identical.

 

I think it is common knowledge that they left out video to enable a thinner body.

 

The thinner body is all I really want as I don't find the M240 particularly comfortable to hold. The better viewfinder and improved imaging above iso1600 are bonuses for me.

 

Pete

Edited by Stealth3kpl
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lburn, when you cast your eye over other full frame digital cameras, what do you see?

 

I see Canon 5D cameras, Nikon D810, various Sonys and the like; and they are all marvels of what the digital age has to offer.  Video, huge MP counts, auto this and setting that, various AF and metering options and huge fabulously made lenses in all shades of grey.  Having owned one of these behemoths, I sat down and actually read the manual cover to cover and was completely bewildered - it had nothing to do with the photography that I had learned on my rangefinder Canonet or my numerous F series Nikons.

 

You pick up an M camera, and let's take the M10; and the aperture is there on the lens barrel where you expect it to be, the shutter dial is top right, ISO top left and you focus manually.  What more do you need?  I know less is more, but even with the best of modern Japanese digital cameras (5DSR, D810e or A7R2, take your pick), you're still recording an image which relies on framing, focus, exposure and sensor setting - none of these all singing all dancing tech driven masterpieces does anything more than the M10 does in this respect.  It all comes back to the same thing, and Leica (like Hasselblad with the new X1D) has just stripped everything away which might get in the way.  That is what makes it special.

 

The M(240) was not really consistent with this, or previous M cameras, because Leica added things that it could, because it had a CMOS sensor which offered considerable new options with live view.  If you look at what is necessary for taking a good picture, the M10 is a (modest) step on from the M(240), and a return to the core ingredients that make an M camera different from the equivalent Sony.  Yep, you get less MP, and Leica seems to think that is a good idea; I don't know enough to challenge that decision, they're the experts; but I can say from experience that I agree with that decision.

 

Cheers

John

Edited by IkarusJohn
Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think it is common knowledge that they left out video to enable a thinner body".

 

Sorry Pete, but I think this is exactly the way assumptions get turned into 'facts' and then become part of the received wisdom of the forum... and a possible cause for future disagreements!!!!

 

The moment you have Live View, you have video capability... it is just a matter of allowing the 'read' from the sensor to be recorded onto the SD card... that's all it actually is.

 

There is no space needed and its 'free' as a by product of cameras function.

 

​Slimming down the body was totally independent of video... the physical size of the M was determined at the start of the digital M product line and continued through all the iterations of the M9 and the M240... and there was no video on the M8 and the M9 because the particular CDD sensor wouldn't allow it... 

 

​The current M10is thinner because the put the circuit boards side by side rather than stacked and added a few mill to the mount on the camera body. It didn't take all that much to do to keep the geometry all the same. A millimetre or two in two areas is enough to thin it down by 3.5mm.

 

But you have a smaller battery now... so its a little less heavy, which people also seem to like.

 

In fact, people like it enough to be able to justify a few thousand Euro/Sterling on an upgrade.

 

I would upgrade from an M8 or an M... but from an M240P??  Not really.

 

Maybe when the M10P comes out I will think about it again... (but really, I'm still hoping for a non-AF mini SL in a M body in a year or two...

:D ). Edited by Bill Livingston
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wonder why Leica retains the little window that was to measure reflected light to estimate F-stop. It is obsolete in the M-10.

 

Back on-topic, as an M9 user the M10 suits me perfectly especially because of the improved finder. As I've written before, I had given up such a possibility and I suspect the viewfinder will remain for future M developments. Who cannot appreciate such an improvement?

.

Edited by pico
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wonder why Leica retains the little window that was to measure reflected light to estimate F-stop. It is obsolete in the M-10.

 

Back on-topic, as an M9 user the M10 suits me perfectly especially because of the improved finder. As I've written before, I had given up such a possibility and I suspect the viewfinder will remain for future M developments. Who cannot appreciate such an improvement? FWIW, it is estimated that 64% of the public (consumers) require eye correction. Leica - good call!

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I still wonder why Leica retains the little window that was to measure reflected light to estimate F-stop. It is obsolete in the M-10.

.

 

No, it isn't.  It also affects the strength of the corrections made to the raw file at the edges and in the corners to offset vignetting when ` lens is wide open (but not at moderate apertures).  And for lenses in the 35 to 75 mm range, it is pretty accurate.  Longer or wider lenses, and harsh lighting situations throw it off.  And the debate about this feature is probably a big distraction.

 

scott

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think it is common knowledge that they left out video to enable a thinner body".

 

Sorry Pete, but I think this is exactly the way assumptions get turned into 'facts' and then become part of the received wisdom of the forum... and a possible cause for future disagreements!!!!

 

The moment you have Live View, you have video capability... it is just a matter of allowing the 'read' from the sensor to be recorded onto the SD card... that's all it actually is.

 

There is no space needed and its 'free' as a by product of cameras function.

 

​Slimming down the body was totally independent of video... the physical size of the M was determined at the start of the digital M product line and continued through all the iterations of the M9 and the M240... and there was no video on the M8 and the M9 because the particular CDD sensor wouldn't allow it...

 

I'm happy to stand corrected. I have to admit I'm having trouble finding where I read or viewed that idea.

Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think it is common knowledge that they left out video to enable a thinner body".

 

Sorry Pete, but I think this is exactly the way assumptions get turned into 'facts' and then become part of the received wisdom of the forum... and a possible cause for future disagreements!!!!

 

The moment you have Live View, you have video capability... it is just a matter of allowing the 'read' from the sensor to be recorded onto the SD card... that's all it actually is.

 

There is no space needed and its 'free' as a by product of cameras function.

 

​Slimming down the body was totally independent of video... the physical size of the M was determined at the start of the digital M product line and continued through all the iterations of the M9 and the M240... and there was no video on the M8 and the M9 because the particular CDD sensor wouldn't allow it... 

 

​The current M10is thinner because the put the circuit boards side by side rather than stacked and added a few mill to the mount on the camera body. It didn't take all that much to do to keep the geometry all the same. A millimetre or two in two areas is enough to thin it down by 3.5mm.

 

But you have a smaller battery now... so its a little less heavy, which people also seem to like.

 

In fact, people like it enough to be able to justify a few thousand Euro/Sterling on an upgrade.

 

I would upgrade from an M8 or an M... but from an M240P??  Not really.

 

Maybe when the M10P comes out I will think about it again... (but really, I'm still hoping for a non-AF mini SL in a M body in a year or two...

:D ).

If the thinner body required using a smaller battery and video was deleted to save power then one could deduce that the thinner body drove removal of video. Video and live view in general use a lot more power than optical viewfinder use alone based on my experience with cameras of a different brand that have LV and vid. The thinner body may have enabled the better viewfinder as well as the thinner feel that IMHO is a real plus for the M10 based on experience comparing my M8 with various film Leicas, M and screw mount. By extension then the smaller battery led to a better viewfinder. The M10 battery may be larger than the M8 battery so may be an improvement of what I have ????

Edited by waterlenz
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am puzzled by the M10. Leica market it as getting closer to the analogue M's in terms of size and handling. etc 

 

Lburn

 

I think you miss the whole point of what Leica initially attempted to do ....... stick a digital sensor in a mostly manual RF film camera ..... which they succeeded in doing .... after a fashion.

 

They have then pursued the improvement and added feature road till they got to the point where adding more was actually creating less in terms of the ergonomics of the original philosophy.

 

You can see how they dabbled in dealing with this with the M60 and M262 ... and finally came to the conclusion that the best option was to rationalise the feature set and stick to the basics. 

 

Having the SL and Q has allowed them the luxury of pushing the M into a permanent specific niche where the future holds only minor changes that don't impact on the M 'experience'.

 

In retrospect the M240 was a 'bridge too far' and I am sure they have picked the right strategy.

 

The only problem is how to change enough to entice users to upgrade without compromising their underlying philosophy ..... and that is going to be a difficult tightrope to walk. 

 

I think many M8/M9/M240 users will eventually change ...... but there will be no rush to do so........

Edited by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites

"

The moment you have Live View, you have video capability... it is just a matter of allowing the 'read' from the sensor to be recorded onto the SD card... that's all it actually is.

 

There is no space needed and its 'free' as a by product of cameras function.

 

Not so sure about this. The resolution of live view is different than the resolution captured on the SD card. Streaming video to an SD card might mean more processing power than streaming to the lcd or evf, and as a result more heat. Is the processing power available in the M10 and can it cope with the extra heat generated or extra battery drain from a already smaller battery?

 

I have not the answer but I do not believe it is as simple as because LV is available video should be available too.

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.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...