w44neg Posted April 9, 2017 Share #1 Posted April 9, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Apparently, the M10 is much smaller than previous M cameras but I couldn't tell the difference from the M9/240? The marketing seems to be all about this so I expected a super thin camera at the least, but it must be negligible. IMO, they should be concentrating on marketing the new sensor instead of the dimensions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 9, 2017 Posted April 9, 2017 Hi w44neg, Take a look here I held an M10... it didn't feel any smaller?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
cp995 Posted April 9, 2017 Share #2 Posted April 9, 2017 Apparently, the M10 is much smaller than previous M cameras but I couldn't tell the difference from the M9/240? The marketing seems to be all about this so I expected a super thin camera at the least, but it must be negligible. IMO, they should be concentrating on marketing the new sensor instead of the dimensions. Completely different to me. First time I grapped the M10, I felt that film body feeling. M240 for me is noticeably thicker! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted April 9, 2017 Share #3 Posted April 9, 2017 noticeable difference for me as well...and one of the main things I like about the upgrade from M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbonanno Posted April 9, 2017 Share #4 Posted April 9, 2017 Apparently, the M10 is much smaller than previous M cameras but I couldn't tell the difference from the M9/240? The marketing seems to be all about this so I expected a super thin camera at the least, but it must be negligible. IMO, they should be concentrating on marketing the new sensor instead of the dimensions. I think you probably would have had to spend some time with an M film to appreciate the similarity. I have an M4.. and other than slight difference in height, the M10 is very similar. I had a 262 and I appreciated the difference right away. Much prefer the feel of the M10, but I'm old and maybe it is mostly nostagia :-). I agree with you that the sensor is the really 'big news' with the M10, at least for me it is the most dramatic improvement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stef63 Posted April 9, 2017 Share #5 Posted April 9, 2017 noticeable difference for me as well...and one of the main things I like about the upgrade from M240. Only some mm shaved off but a very noticable difference indeed. The M240 was the wrong direction from the M9 on this aspect, the M10 is a step up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankSL&M Posted April 9, 2017 Share #6 Posted April 9, 2017 Very different feel between the two camera. I actually prefer the feel of the thicker camera in the hand. On M240 my thumb is on the body whereas on M10 the thumb is on the LCD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted April 9, 2017 Share #7 Posted April 9, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree with the other posters. The M10 feels much thinner in hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sierratrekker Posted April 9, 2017 Share #8 Posted April 9, 2017 I have never held an M before and the difference between the 240 and the 10 was dramatic. The 10 felt really good, not too big, not too small but just right. I also really liked the simplicity of the layout. For someone like me who doesn't own a Leica body, it's a no brainer. The M10 all the way. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
olgierdc Posted April 9, 2017 Share #9 Posted April 9, 2017 For me 10% difference in thickness makes a difference. Holding a few hours in my hand I feel much less tired. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiOnara Posted April 9, 2017 Share #10 Posted April 9, 2017 I definitely feel the size difference from the M240 to the M10. I still have my old M8 and obviously it's less of a difference with that camera. Just feels great to have it the same thickness as my MP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted April 9, 2017 Share #11 Posted April 9, 2017 Odd - I went to Leica Mayfair for a quick assessment of the M10, so my observations are a bit unreliable, but I immediately noticed its smaller size in the hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted April 9, 2017 Share #12 Posted April 9, 2017 Hard to imagine anyone wouldn't immediately feel the difference. It's not at all subtle. For me, who carried film M's for years before the M8 made its appearance, the M10 is like going home again. I can't wait for it to show up! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted April 10, 2017 Share #13 Posted April 10, 2017 For me it isn’t a big issue as I had no difficulty handling the M8, M9, or M (Typ 240), but the M10 certainly is noticably smaller. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted April 10, 2017 Share #14 Posted April 10, 2017 The M10 is 38.5mm (1.50 inches) thick while the M-P 240 is 42.0mm (1.70 inches) thick. That 3.5mm or 0.20 inches sounds insignificant but it seems to make a big difference to more than a few M camera connoisseurs. I have never thought my M-P 240 to be too fat, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
w44neg Posted April 10, 2017 Author Share #15 Posted April 10, 2017 Thanks for the replies. I guess as you say it's something that will be felt more the longer the camera is in-hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted April 10, 2017 Share #16 Posted April 10, 2017 Not really, there is a significant difference in M10 width... From a post I wrote on a different thread...The actual overall dimensions according to Leica themselves are as follows:Leica M240 138.6mm x 42 x 80Leica M9 139 x 37 x 80Leica M10 139 x 38.5 x 80So what does that tell you? The M240 is 'fatter' than the other two, some 5mm fatter than the M9? Well, yes, but the actual body width is more or less the same. The protrusions on the back for the thumb grip on the are the reason for the measured additional width, not the body itself. Which brings me on to the next point... and this is VERY interesting... According to Leica, the overall depth of the M10 actually measures 1.5mm more than the M9!!! Thats because they always measure the overall depth, including all switches and protrusions such as the thumb grip at the back - and of course the lens mount on the M10 protrudes quite significantly so you can get the correct distance from the sensor, in a thinner body. None of this matters of course, because the dimension you actually want to know is how fat does it actually look and feel...?Well, as I have said the M and the M9 are pretty much the same (as was the M8)... the M10 on the other hand, feels and looks considerably thinner than any of the previous M digitals because the body, the bit that actually matters, IS thinner... by quite a margin. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 33.7mm to be accurate. So although it measures 38.5mm, 4.8mm is accounted for by the lens mount and the rear switches/thumb grip (which can be seen pretty clearly on the picture above... the M240 thumb grip is similar, the M9 has no thumb grip, which is why people reading specs assume there is a significant difference between the M240 and the M9, and there really isn't...).Of course Leica don't help... the picture above shows the dimensions of the top plate being 33.7mm... of course, they have ignored the thumb grip and the lens mount in the marketing, yet include them in the measurements in their technical publications... Which accounts for the confusion and the experience of some commentators here... , but the 33.7 dimension is actually what matters... And thats my point about the M9 and the M240 (and the M8). The thumb grip on the M240 is what accounts for the measured difference, not the body thickness. Same as the M10 thumb grip and the protruding lens mount which appears to suggest the M10 is wider than the M9, which in actual use, is nonsense of course.To sum up, the M8, M9 and M240 were all about the same size in terms of actual body thickness and the M10 is considerably slimmer. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 33.7mm to be accurate. So although it measures 38.5mm, 4.8mm is accounted for by the lens mount and the rear switches/thumb grip (which can be seen pretty clearly on the picture above... the M240 thumb grip is similar, the M9 has no thumb grip, which is why people reading specs assume there is a significant difference between the M240 and the M9, and there really isn't...). Of course Leica don't help... the picture above shows the dimensions of the top plate being 33.7mm... of course, they have ignored the thumb grip and the lens mount in the marketing, yet include them in the measurements in their technical publications... Which accounts for the confusion and the experience of some commentators here... , but the 33.7 dimension is actually what matters... And thats my point about the M9 and the M240 (and the M8). The thumb grip on the M240 is what accounts for the measured difference, not the body thickness. Same as the M10 thumb grip and the protruding lens mount which appears to suggest the M10 is wider than the M9, which in actual use, is nonsense of course. To sum up, the M8, M9 and M240 were all about the same size in terms of actual body thickness and the M10 is considerably slimmer. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/271189-i-held-an-m10-it-didnt-feel-any-smaller/?do=findComment&comment=3251822'>More sharing options...
hoolyproductions Posted April 11, 2017 Share #17 Posted April 11, 2017 For me the difference is more aesthetic than ergonomic, but being an M6 shooter I *really* appreciate the difference between the M10 and 240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted April 11, 2017 Share #18 Posted April 11, 2017 A couple of points: - The M10 is smaller - but not a lot lighter (than the 240; it is heavier than the M9). "Hand feel" is going to depend on weight as well as size. The hand is great for judging ergonomics, but it is a lousy micrometer. - for me, the real benefits of the thinner body are practical, not ergonomic. The larger finder it allows (a shorter "tunnel" from the eyepiece to the front window, allowing higher magnification without losing the 28mm framelines, and thus more precise focusing). And, as I just discovered, the M10 works perfectly with the DR (close-range) 50mm Summicron, thanks to the extended lens mount. See "M10 image" thread. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268528-m10-the-image-thread/?p=3252928 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.noctilux Posted April 11, 2017 Share #19 Posted April 11, 2017 A couple of points: - The M10 is smaller - but not a lot lighter (than the 240; it is heavier than the M9). "Hand feel" is going to depend on weight as well as size. The hand is great for judging ergonomics, but it is a lousy micrometer. - for me, the real benefits of the thinner body are practical, not ergonomic. The larger finder it allows (a shorter "tunnel" from the eyepiece to the front window, allowing higher magnification without losing the 28mm framelines, and thus more precise focusing). And, as I just discovered, the M10 works perfectly with the DR (close-range) 50mm Summicron, thanks to the extended lens mount. See "M10 image" thread. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268528-m10-the-image-thread/?p=3252928 M10 + SOMNI that's the great surprise I discovered from day one of using my M10 and trying a couple of exotic lenses. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/269876-m10-can-be-used-with-somni-50mm-dr-full-range/ This M10 finder is the best M viewfinder (as long time M user of all kind I would insist). And big, clear, no flare, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
w44neg Posted April 11, 2017 Author Share #20 Posted April 11, 2017 I tried out an M10 again today but have to say, I guess as I'm used to larger cameras, I personally feel the M240 is move solid in the hand. I was actually buying a new MP at the time and even if there was an M10 available there and then, I still would have gone the route I have done. It's all personal preference at the end of the day but I still feel the main improvement is the higher ISO capability... if you need it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.