Jump to content
ctle

LEICA M10 Camera VS. LEICA Q Camera - A Comparative Review

Recommended Posts

Very curious, in that he says the M240 is now a better buy than the M10, while image quality is better than that of the Q because of its later sensor, but no-one else will admit this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This!  His video "reviews" are terrible.

 

the production quality of his videos are pretty good .... the content sadly is just awful. 

 

I remember watching his review on the 35mm Summilux in which he faults it for being 35mm because he prefers 50mm ... I mean come on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One can compare any two things, but I don't see why one would compare the M and Q.  For me, they solve different shooting requirements and present very differently to the user, meaning the obvious AF/EVF versus MF/OVF, fixed lens versus interchangeable lens capability, and cost.

 

Image quality?  Not an issue in either case for most users, I would think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not super impressed with the review.  It had some inaccuracies:

 

1) "Fixed Lens Camera" is not the same as fixed focal length--the X-Vario, for example, has a permanently fixed lens, but it is a zoom

2) I don't think Leica has ever suggested that the Summilux lenses are more "top of the line" than the Summicrons--just that they are faster.  I certainly wouldn't consider my 50mm Summicron-M APO to be a second-tier lens to the Summilux-M 50mm.  

3) He said the sensor for the M10 is made by CMOSIS.  I haven't seen any evidence yet of who manufactures the sensor for the M10.

4) He said that if you look online at sample images from the Leica 'Q' and form the Leica M10, the M10 images appear to have higher quality.  I certainly can't find any evidence of that.  Leica Rumors says they are almost the same at high ISO.  Sean Reid says the SL (almost the same sensor as the 'Q') have very similar high ISO performance.  I haven't seen DR numbers yet for the M10, but I just don't see any evidence at this point that image quality would be noticeably different.  

5) Suggests that Leica avoids showing certain image quality comparisons to keep sales of one camera from canibalizing sales of another.  That's just plane silly.  I don't know of any camera manufacturer that does side-by-side comparisons of image quality of ANY different models.  It's not some conspiracy on the part of Leica management to keep you from learning about the poor image quality of one camera model vs. another (or the relative lack of difference between models, if you think the conspiracy runs the other way).  

6) States that the Sony RX1RII has a huge advantage over the 'Q' because of it's having a 35mm lens.  That's just silly.  There is nothing intrinsically "better" about a 35mm lens.  Some photographers prefer the angle of coverage of a 35, others a 28.  Certainly, the 35 has been more popular over the years for SLR owners, but if you want to start including cell phones in what is now "popular" the 28mm angle of view actually dominates.  It's just a difference--not an advantage either way.

7)  Suggesting that the continuous shooting mode for the Leica M10 is buried in the menu because of the embarrassment of comparing it to the 10 FPS of the Leica 'Q' is just plane silly.  Neither camera is intended for or good at action shots.  And I certainly don't think Leica is embarrassed by the 5 fps on the M10.  They shifted the continuous drive function into the menus to give a cleaner external design--there aren't all that many situations where one would want 10 fps in a manual focus camera!

8) Likewise, it is silly to suggest that removing video functionality from the M10 was a "downgrade".  Again, any given photographer may or may not like the choice, but the reasoning was quite clear; Leica M cameras simply aren't used for capturing video.  Neither is the 'Q', for that matter.  It was a superfluous feature that cluttered up the design.  Leica has long had a minimalist ethos--if they don't think people are going to use a feature, they'd rather remove it in order to make the camera more "pure".  You may disagree with the decision, but it's certainly not a "downgrade" as the reviewer implies.

9) States that most Leica 'M' lenses have a close focus of 0.5m.  Not correct.  Most are either 0.7m or 1m.  I'm not aware of any that get to 0.5m without a macro adapter.

10) Suggests that the M10 is not an improved camera on the M(240) because it's still a 24 megapixel camera and because they have actually removed the video function.  Well, the sensor may still be 24 megapixels, but it is significantly upgraded over the M(240).  He seems not to realize that the sensor in the M10 is different from that in the M(240).  

 

Coming from a general electronics website or the like, even a general photography website, these mistakes would all be understandable if not quite acceptable.  There are lots of people out there who don't agree with Leica's design philosophy.  But coming from a Leica Review website?  Shows a bit more ignorance than I would expect.  Of course I did just sit and watch the whole thing... Shame on me, I suppose.  

 

- Jared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just sour grapes. He didn't even have Q let alone M10. How can he compare. Its like asking other reviewers to review the camera by giving them bunch of processed JPEGs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video was a waste of 20 minutes of my life which I'll never get back. Commenting on the review & reviewers obvious short comings would also waste more valuable time.

Simple solution is to just ignore any past or future verbal and visual diarrhoea this individual excretes.

Problem solved

 . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, realized as I was writing down my critique of the review that I was just throwing one waste of time after another.  Shame on me.  My only justification is that I was making a vane attempt to help those new to Leica cameras avoid bad sources of information.

 

- Jared

Edited by Jared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why would anyone spend time watching this? Isn't it sort of like comparing apples to donuts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly. His next review will be a comparison of the Leica SL and the Mercedes SL.

 

I know the verdict: Leica SL has no! rear camera, Mercedes wins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I'm reviving this, but I'd really like to know how people compare these two cameras.

Ok, I feel this topic is interesting, even if you don't like the particular comparison video. Let's assume you already own an M10 and some decent lenses, say a 35/2 ASPH -- not Leica's best or most expensive, but a VERY good lens (or the 28 ASPH). 

Do you still want a Q and if so, why? What do you get with the Q that you don't already have? Those of  you who may have both, I'd like to hear the reasons you pick up the Q instead of the M10 when you go shoot something.

Thanks.

Edited by carbon_dragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't seen the review here but I would like to add something since the discussion did come up concerning image quality between the M10, Q and RX1rII...

I have owned all 3. My honest opinion is that the M10 and Sony are about tied in image quality. The Sony has the better resolution but Leica color is in my opinion much better than Sony's, so overall, I would say it's pretty much a wash between those cameras when it comes to image quality. As far as the Q is concerned, while its IQ is very good, I always had an issue with the amount of moire I would get from that camera. Depending on subject matter, it can sometimes be pretty nasty. I see this with the M10 as well, but not nearly as often. I rarely if ever saw moire with the Sony.

Edited by jay968

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had some moire with my Q, but not so much, so I guess it depends on subject/shooting style.

Why should you get the Q if you already have the M10? Well, you get a terrific EVF which might come in handy, and, again if you want, very quick autofocus, which is great for street shooting. I don't have--with my aging eyes, won't have--an M (though the M10 is maybe the finest piece of manufactured equipment I've ever held). But the Q is wonderful as a single travel camera.

 If you lust for the Q--which is an easy thing to do--you might want to wait 18 months until the Q2, which will have the (I'm assuming) Maestro III 48ish MPS sensor. That camera will print lovely images from 28 to 75/90mm equivalent and be a fantastic travel camera for the rangefinder owner who is used to pretty much that field of vision.

Share this post


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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy