M10 or a noctilux

[grievor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Torn between either getting a noctilux or a m10.... Any suggestions?

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

[digitalfx]

id get a boat.

[Advertisement]

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

[Dirk Mandeville]

Ummm? Pick the one you want the most? I mean, come on. You are going to have to give us more to work with than that. What do you have now? What do you like to shoot? What weaknesses in your current setup limit you? Why are you considering either of these? Do you really need a Nocti or is it a whim? Are the upgrades in the M10 worth the price considering your current camera? Things like that. Just some basic background on which people can base a recommendation. Otherwise, the answer is: get both!

[jlindstrom]

Or M10 _with_ a Noctilux? [emoji851]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Alo Ako]

Start getting the Noctilux, a year later on get the M10.

[dennersten]

I would say M10. I have a Noctilux. It was the actual reason i started with Leica 15 - 20 years ago. I live in a very dark country, the southern part of Sweden. It´s only light for 5 hours Christmas day (nothing in Northern Sweden). The brightest time during the day you could maybe expose with ISO 400, f1,4, 1/60. During the film era, M8, M9 the Noctilux was almost the only lens mounted on the camera 3 months per year.    

 

But i find that the Noctilux seldom leaves the camera bag these days with M240 with useful ISO2000

 

Sure the result with Noctilux are magical when you nail it. 

 

But: 

- It requires a lot of practice to nail f 1.0 

- It's big and bulky 

- Have a long focus throw. 

[mdg1371]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What camera are you currently shooting with? What subjects do you shoot? Which Noct?

I have the M10, and the f0.95 version. For my purposes, I would sacrifice the M10 first, even though I love the improvements.

If you're talking about an f1 version, I would rather have the M10. Others may have the exact opposite and equally valid opinion.

[01af]

Depends on what you already have.

[Jager]

Aye, certainly depends on where you're coming from and where you want to go.

 

That said, the Noctilux - either version - is unique in photography.  Not because of its speed - it has that, of course - but because of its remarkable signature.  Adding it to your palette gives you something that almost no one else has.

 

It's not an easy lens to wield well.  It's heavy.  It's slow.  Its hit rate is less than other lenses.  It requires commitment, restraint, and thoughtfulness, in equal measure.  But once past those... it gives you something very, very special.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Jager

[onaujee]

What lenses do you currently own? I'd think a m10 with 50lux ASPH would be an excellent combo...

[cookedart]

What body would you be shooting the Noctilux on? And are you thinking the f/0.95 or the f/1.0?

[jdlaing]

Both.

[pico]

M 10 because with its good higher ISO you can use an F/2 or Summilux with better focus and DOF. Super fast lenses (I have two, F/.95 and F/1) are really not needed by most of us with late model digital cameras. You are not doing surveillance work, are you?

 

Best of luck!

Edited February 13, 2017 by pico

[otto.f]

Base ISO of 100 in M10 makes Noctilux more interesting in summer.

 

I have always said to myself to spend my money on lenses, not on bodies. But in this case, I'd go for the M10, because it is just better for all the fast lenses of 1.4 and below. The grain/noise character is unsurpassed and may even be a more interesting image characteristic than shallow depth of field. see my post elsewhere:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268528-m10-the-image-thread/page-11?do=findComment&comment=3205240

 

#216 and #217

 

But honestly, I would never buy a Noctilux because of the 1m shortest distance

Edited February 13, 2017 by otto.f

[Tom R]

Torn between either getting a noctilux or a m10.... Any suggestions?

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

 

How are these related? Personally, unless I had a very specific reason, such as an extended contract to undertake work that required either of these items, I'd pocket that cash for high-quality lab work or some travel where, hopefully, I'd make unpredictably new images.

[digitalfx]

wouldn't it help if we had more info...like which camera and lenses he has?

[luigi bertolotti]

Depends on what you already have.

That's the question... maybe he currently has a M3 with Elmar 50...

[UliWer]

That's the question... maybe he currently has a M3 with Elmar 50...

At least the item last mentioned makes more sense than any Noctilux.

[Tailwagger]

Not sure the current equipment matters as much as the existing mindset. If you think the feature set of the M10 brings significant value and can measurably up the hit rate or quality of result, say due to low light improvements, then thats the way to go. If, OTOH, there you think the Noctilux provides a look you desire and cant live without, no new body can ever satisfy that.  In general, when faced with more options than resources, I tend to spend on lenses, as glass is forever while bodies are fleeting and can always be had cheaper, later.  But adding equipment, responsibly, is about identifying the weaknesses in what you have and addressing the large ones first.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Tailwagger

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[a.noctilux]

Noctilux at 1.0/0.95 with M10's 50 000 ISO is a must to take "impossible photo of available very deep darkness"

 

I will try that, if I see the subject

Edited February 14, 2017 by a.noctilux