M10? - Sorry, no!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, but none of these things were features of the M240 that were dropped in the M10. Surely the camera could have had even more features, but not having these features does not make it less of a travel and reportage camera than it always has been. It is still great for these purposes.

No, but I answered a post asking specifically which features I would have liked. Technical possibility is another thing.

 

1: Weight: An obvious consideration for a travel camera. Of course one needs a certain heft, but the Leica M cameras feel extraordinary dense. I was very surprised when the M8 came out that brass was used instead of a carbon fibre composite.

2: IBIS (in-body image stabilisation). An obvious plus for a camera that is supposed to take longer lenses. Travelling and tripods don't mix very well.

3: A better EVF The GH5 and to a certain extent SL have shown that the Visoflex , like the EV2, is already outdated as the camera comes out. Not a specific travel requirement.

4: Better battery life. A requirement when one is away from industrialised society. Why does the camera not have an optional battery grip (with USB etc?)?

5:  Modern frame lines> A bit of a whimsical addition, but wouldn't it be nice?

 

 

The whole problem for me is that Leica decided that the M10 should be taken back to "das Wesentliche" and decided it to mean that they would make it the best retro camera ever built - at which they succeeded.

It was made as thin as a film M for this reason and to the delight of the customers, with all design compromises made subordinate to that decision.

 

Video is not possible, due to heat and battery endurance concerns.

 

IBIS would make the camera thicker, at a guess maybe 2 mm.

 

The T EVF was chosen at a time that the specifications were formulated - but the development was so difficult that that is 5 years or more back.

 

The battery is smaller because of size limitations. Given the hidden connector, a grip may have been considered but not implemented.

 

As it is I would be the last one to deny that it is the best digital rangefinder ever built, and a superbly retro Leica M. Making it thin is superb engineering. Only I was never bothered by the thickness of the previous models... The improvements that were implemented to for instance the viewfinder are really good.

However:

The cherry on the cake and a confirmation of the retro thinking is that ISO knob. A straight copy from the M3, looking for a function. ISO was probably the best option, but why not keep the corner clean of a fallible mechanism and use the time-honoured lifting shutterspeed dial? Marketing design.

 

I am not insisting that Leica return from their decision to take the Leica M back in time in the matter of versatility in the name of "purity", unlike the anti-Video crowd did when railing against the 21st Century. I am just regretting that the M has been made obsolete by other systems  (even the TL2 is better suited for this use, let alone the offerings by other brands) for part of my use. I am not ditching my present digital Ms, perish the thought!, just opting out of buying new ones and mothballing the M whenever I am off into the world.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jon Warwick]

It's not clear how much the lack of video is playing to the crowd, or a necessity given everything is so packed into the M10's thinner body (possible heat issues?). I for one like having the convenience of video (family, travel) on the M240. I won't bother upgrading to the M10 as a result.

 

It seems Leica moved more and more into utter "analogue" style with zero bells and whistles with the M.

 

For everything else -- good video, and potentially the best lenses ever for 35mm FF when the new SL Summicrons arrive -- there is the SL. I never thought I'd stop using rangefinders, but I do want these "extras" like video, so I'm wondering if an SL will end up being a more suitable path for me at this rate .....

[jaapv]

Dear Jaap, of course you have. Just beware getting too repetitious on the subject!

You are probably right, Robert,

 

I'm not going to rehash that whole discussion after a zillion posts on the subject.

but I was asked directly...

[Peter H]

It's not clear how much the lack of video is playing to the crowd, or a necessity given everything is so packed into the M10's thinner body (possible heat issues?). I for one like having the convenience of video (family, travel) on the M240. I won't bother upgrading to the M10 as a result.

 

It seems Leica moved more and more into utter "analogue" style with zero bells and whistles with the M.

 

For everything else -- good video, and potentially the best lenses ever for 35mm FF when the new SL Summicrons arrive -- there is the SL. I never thought I'd stop using rangefinders, but I do want these "extras" like video, so I'm wondering if an SL will end up being a more suitable path for me at this rate .....

You're right, it's not clear whether Leica simply played to the crowd but there certainly was a sustained clamour for "purity" in the form of a thinner body and quite a cacophony of "lose the video" before the details of the M10 were announced. I believe this was largely people wanting a film camera without the inconvenience of having to use film.

 

As it now turns out, many people didn't mind the extra depth of the M240 after all, and the M10 wasn't the only design that would have appealed.

 

I bought the M10 because it's the best digital rangefinder ever, and in ways that matter to me. But I regret the fact that Leica has divided its attention between the SL and the M and appears to be forcing us to choose between traditionalist and modern values by creating an unnecessary and false distinction beteeen the two ideals.

 

I still believe there's a place for a thoroughly modern camera that acknowledges that a rangefinder is a valid contemporary option, and incorporates the best that technology can offer, with features that Jaap mentions such as IBIS, video and plenty of other little things that I'm sure, on the evidence of the brilliant M240, the latest M could accommodate without in any way compromising the unique simplicity and directness of its handling.

[pgk]

I am just regretting that the M has been made obsolete by other systems .....

Obsolescence is a state of mind to quite a large extent. The problem always faced when new 'competition' arrives, is whether to modify and compete and risk a Frakensteinian fiasco of a dog's dinner, which loses its prime purposes and is elevated into an unsustainable position, or whether to retain its placement and compete with other new models which are specifically designed to do so. To my mind Leica has taken the latter step and could compete well on most points other than price. Whether it can succeed at the pitched price point remains to be seen. I hope that the M line continues in a 'purist' state not only because I want a simple camera but also because I don't think that modifying the M is a sustainable solution in the long term. It is what it is.

[jaapv]

Obsolescence is a state of mind to quite a large extent. The problem always faced when new 'competition' arrives, is whether to modify and compete and risk a Frakensteinian fiasco of a dog's dinner, which loses its prime purposes and is elevated into an unsustainable position, or whether to retain its placement and compete with other new models which are specifically designed to do so. To my mind Leica has taken the latter step and could compete well on most points other than price. Whether it can succeed at the pitched price point remains to be seen. I hope that the M line continues in a 'purist' state not only because I want a simple camera but also because I don't think that modifying the M is a sustainable solution in the long term. It is what it is.

I think that the chance of that happening is fairly slim on a Leica design, unless you regard the versatile SL as such.

You might have noticed that I am pointing out that a number of features that would have enhanced its historical prime purpose have been omitted/left out, catering to the present day myth that an M camera must be a "pure" (whatever level of simplicity that may indicate ) kind of machine. Actually, it never was. Leica always tried to keep it abreast of the times, albeit with varying success  (viz. the M5) and always losing out to the competition. In that sense, it is logical that they have thrown the towel.

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Obsolescence is a state of mind to quite a large extent. The problem always faced when new 'competition' arrives, is whether to modify and compete and risk a Frakensteinian fiasco of a dog's dinner, which loses its prime purposes and is elevated into an unsustainable position, or whether to retain its placement and compete with other new models which are specifically designed to do so. To my mind Leica has taken the latter step and could compete well on most points other than price. Whether it can succeed at the pitched price point remains to be seen. I hope that the M line continues in a 'purist' state not only because I want a simple camera but also because I don't think that modifying the M is a sustainable solution in the long term. It is what it is.

No, I don't think it is what it is.

 

When a camera is announced it is usually pretty much up-to-the-minute in terms of appropriate technology within its overall design parameters. Three years later it is a three years behind-the-times product so it is already something different from the original thing.

 

This may not matter to you, but there is a decision to be made as to whether and when a new product is necessary.

 

I imagine Leica would be gone by now if they had decided to halt progress with the M7, or even the M8. But luckily for us they tried to keep up with technology and did a pretty good job of it.

 

At what point do you decide to stop? It may feel that you now have all you'll ever need. But that's how it felt to many people 10 years ago, and 20, but any company in this line of business following that instinct and freezing their product line because it's good enough at that point would be long gone by now.

[LocalHero1953]

Obsolescence is a state of mind to quite a large extent.

Yes, as are calls for purity - traditionally made by conservatives throughout history as a response to change.

 

Until recently, purity and das Wesentlich meant nothing in the Leica world: the Leica camera did whatever Leitz could make it do within the fundamental limitations of the design. I guess we're now reduced to arguing about whether the M3 would have had video as a built in option instead of an add-on if the option had been available.

 

IMO 'das Wesentlich' has been a marketing response to joint conundrums posed by engineering and marketing: 

- 'we can't put video in without overheating, so how do we sell it to punters?'

- 'we're being squeezed by mirrorless cameras* which can offer more functionality, including WYSIWYG displays and AF; we can no longer sell the M as the only full frame non-SLR, so how do we define ourselves now?'

 

* Including the TL and SL

[jaapv]

Yes, as are calls for purity - traditionally made by conservatives throughout history as a response to change.

 

Until recently, purity and das Wesentlich meant nothing in the Leica world: the Leica camera did whatever Leitz could make it do within the fundamental limitations of the design. I guess we're now reduced to arguing about whether the M3 would have had video as a built in option instead of an add-on if the option had been available.

 

IMO 'das Wesentlich' has been a marketing response to joint conundrums posed by engineering and marketing: 

- 'we can't put video in without overheating, so how do we sell it to punters?'

- 'we're being squeezed by mirrorless cameras* which can offer more functionality, including WYSIWYG displays and AF; we can no longer sell the M as the only full frame non-SLR, so how do we define ourselves now?'

 

* Including the TL and SL

That and the tunnel vision : it must be smaller at any cost. Possibly induced by a lingering M5 trauma, fed by the forums.

[Peter H]

Maybe it's about time Leica started marketing the benefits of the rangefinder viewfinder.

 

Sell the idea because it's a good one, not because it's nostalgic or "pure" in some mystical echo of days before you were born.

[lct]

Maybe it's about time Leica started marketing the benefits of the rangefinder viewfinder.

Sell the idea because it's a good one, not because it's nostalgic or "pure" in some mystical echo of days before you were born.

 

Exactly. There is a future for rangefinders. If we let things going this way digital Ms will be treated as film ones, just nice dead ends sort of, and modernity will only be for SL users.

[pedaes]

Whilst being very happy personally with what the M10 has and hasn't got, and although one who never really bonded with the M240 I have no disagreement with this discussion and the points made. However, my perception reading other threads, especially the "Availability" thread, is that the M10 is attracting a lot of new to Leica users, more so than the M240. The reduced features don't seem to be a deterrent. How many will have the patience to master the 'purity' will be interesting to follow.  

[mhicks]

Great, great responses, really from everyone.

 

'Frankenstein fiasco of a dog's dinner' actually drew a laugh from me - now certain I will use this mixed metaphor later!

 

'How many will have the patience to master the 'purity' will be interesting to follow. '

It really would be. I left Nikon for Sony due to weight and bulk. Then left Sony for Leica due to rangefinder. It's only been two months since I've had the M so I'm still in the honeymoon stage - therefore less likely to find fault with the system than attribute error elsewhere.

 

If I understand correctly, smaller camera body was the constraint around which the design centered, presumably to make the camera 'feel' more film-camera like.

 

Let's assume that's the case. And then let's assume that Jaapv is correct in that they tried video but heat dissipation was ineffective.

 

To me, that sentence alone disabuses us of this notion of design for purity's sake, for why try video in the first place?

 

Therefore, I'd assert a different kind of patience: once technology catches up to the thinness requirement, features will again be added. Wait for the 11 and you'll likely see these features re-added. It's only a hypothesis, and one that can only be disproven when the next in the series arrives.

[euston]

Why don't we take a moment to count our blessings? Leica's journey from film to digital has been a positive one and it could so easily have been otherwise. A decade ago Leica didn't think a full frame digital M was even feasible and most of the experts agreed with them.

 

Now look at us! We have live view and coupled rangefinder in one FF camera body, thoroughly usable ISO of at least 12500 and we are debating the desirability of including video - the desirability, mark you, not its technical feasibility. Not to mention all the other digital camera ranges that Leica has introduced. For a small conservative company with such a long film heritage, that is an amazing transformation in such a short time.

[pgk]

Maybe it's about time Leica started marketing the benefits of the rangefinder viewfinder.

 

I fully agree. But I have asked the next question numerous times with virtually no response: "why not campaign for a rangefinder to be fitted to the SL ?". Its been tried before by Alpa as an example - rangefinder/SLR. The problem is just not that simple. The M is what it is because of two things: its rangefinder, and, its form factor - and please do not underestimate the latter. It would make logical sense to redefine the M body into a much more ergonomic one as most other manufacturers have, with proper handgrip (seriously Leica, the tubular effort is a poor and messy solution) and inclined shutter release and so on. But history tells us that such radical redesigns are, like the M5, probably not acceptable. So my point still remains the same; that if you want to retain both rangefinder and form factor, the camera has limitations which, if worked within, are as good as ever, but if you try to exceed them the result (as history tells us, will be a failure. Simplicity, in today's technological world, actually has its own attractiveness.

[lct]

Horses for courses. First time in 30+ years i'm that disappointed by Leica. Bulky SL, retro M10, chimping TL2, the only Leica body i could buy is the DL109 but i have the better (to me) clone from Panasonic already. Lenses still stand out fortunately.

[jaapv]

I'm not convinced that a rangefinder in a more modern body would be a failure. The GX8 is begging for one. Why not a Panaleica with a modernised CL based rangefinder hybrid?

[Peter H]

Horses for courses. First time in 30+ years i'm that disappointed by Leica. Bulky SL, retro M10, chimping TL2, the only Leica body i could buy is the DL109 but i have the better (to me) clone from Panasonic already. Lenses still stand out fortunately.

I think it's wrong to dismiss the M10 as retro, despite the Leica marketing department's best efforts to make us see it that way.

 

In some ctritically important ways it's the best 24x36 format camera I've ever used in any medium by any manufacturer, so as Euston says we need to keep a sense of proportion.

 

But if course if the bits they've left out are very important to you, it may not matter how wonderfully it performs in most other respects.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

I think it's wrong to dismiss the M10 as retro, despite the Leica marketing department's best efforts to make us see it that way.

In some ctritically important ways it's the best 24x36 format camera I've ever used [...]

 

With that EVF? Frankly... The best retro digital RF certainly but otherwise... I have too many legacy cameras already. 

[Peter H]

With that EVF? Frankly... The best retro digital RF certainly but otherwise... I have too many legacy cameras already.

Sorry, but that sounds a bit dogmatic to me.

 

I use an M10 alongside a Fuji XPro 2 and XT2, and the Leica is certainly no less advanced in most of the areas that matter most to me: viewing, focussing, recording and processing, handling and overall suitability to its task.

 

They each have some advantages and disadvantages over each other but if I were restricted to just one, I'd choose the Leica since it is the most capable overall of delivering very high quality images in a huge range of circumstances.

 

I trust myself with it and it delivers more dependably than any fully automated camera I've ever used. Edit: except when I trip over and drop it!

 

It may be many things but it isn't a legacy camera. Yet.

 

But never mind. Maybe the M360 will be more to your taste.