Leica M10 vs Leica M240?

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Such a review reveals that the author doesn't know how to post-process. It is possible to get excellent ("popping" if that is your thing) colour out of any modern (as in the last ten years or so) camera. It may just take a bit of time and effort by the user to tweak the colour workflow to taste.

BTW, the "range" of colours you have depends on the colour space you choose at raw developing. Making colours "pop" means reducing the nuances.

I'd really appreciate a bit of advice here on what people do when processing dngs to improve depth of tonality. I look at images from film, MF digital, and the b&w MM ....and feel like I'm walking into a 3D image. In comparison, i struggle to feel that with images from the M240 or M10. Quite possibly PP issue on my side, given wide latitude of the CMOS sensor - thoughts / advice? Thanks.

[jaapv]

It is hard to give a recipe, given that we do not know your taste in colour and/or skill level There are so many ways to tweak the image presence, ranging from creating  your own camera profile, simply playing with the sliders in ACR (AKA Lightroom ) through using individual colour curves in Photoshop to using LAB as promoted by Dan Margulis. And  some more... It is a bit of a learning curve, but a highly satisfactory road to go.

 

These PS presets will give you instant results.

http://cc-extensions.com/products/ppw/

 

But understanding them will require rereading the book that goes with them several times. Each time will give you a double dose Paracetamol-Codeine headache...

[Eric1]

I don't own a Nikon camera but do own Sony and Fuji 24MP bodies. The M10 files are more robust than the Fuji files. Even the 240 is ahead of the XPro2. The M10 is close to the A72 but I really dislike the skin tones on Sony cameras so the Leica is better. I see little difference in file malleability. The A7R2 (43MP) is slightly better in DR (about a half stop) and with a lot more detail. This is for raw files.

 

Fuji jpegs are the best of all of them. By a mile. No contest.

 

Both Leicas have better detail and DR than all the Canon sensors except the 1Dx2 (about the same the Canon is half a stop better in noise) and the 5D4 (currently Canons best) for raw files.

 

Bottom line is the M10 sensor is a competitive modern sensor. And the M240 is still a very good sensor. you don't choose between an M and other brands because of the sensor anymore.

 

Gordon

 

p.s. I've already put down my thoughts in other threads but boiled down my personal opinion is that the M10 is a bigger upgrade than I though it was going to be *IF* you want to use the tricky lenses (Noctilux, 90AA, 75 Summilux or 135 APO). For the *normal* range (28-90mm lenses and no Noctilux) it's a decent but not essential upgrade, with improvements to the speed of operation and the smaller size.

 

I'm keeping my M-P as a companion to my M10 and will not have any regrets shooting it. The M10 will be there for the difficult lenses though....

Thanks for comparison to fuji and sony. This is what I was wondering. Glad to hear they M10 is just as good.

[Eric1]

Such a review reveals that the author doesn't know how to post-process. It is possible to get excellent ("popping" if that is your thing)  colour out of any modern (as in the last ten years or so) camera. It may just take a bit of time and effort  by the user to tweak the colour workflow to taste.

BTW, the "range" of colours you have depends on the colour space you choose at raw developing. Making colours "pop" means reducing the nuances.

Lol, yes that is what I was thinking too about the reviewer. It didn't seem to make sense but maybe he is only interested in jpeg's and didn't know how to post process or tweak anything. I think people make the mistake of thinking digital is like film, pre-packaged look when that really isn't the case and is what makes digital appealing in the first place:

[Eric1]

I'd really appreciate a bit of advice here on what people do when processing dngs to improve depth of tonality. I look at images from film, MF digital, and the b&w MM ....and feel like I'm walking into a 3D image. In comparison, i struggle to feel that with images from the M240 or M10. Quite possibly PP issue on my side, given wide latitude of the CMOS sensor - thoughts / advice? Thanks.

Ive never looked at film and thought 3D image but dng files normally look flat right out of the camera. They do this on purpose so you can tweak them easier. If you want the film look with your digital camera try turning the contrast bar in photoshop all the way down. Digital files often have the contrast turned up too much which hides micro-contrast in my opinion. Once you turn that down, the image will generally look softer and hence more deep.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

i guess the reviewers should have his eyes check immediately... LOL!

 

Actually no. There's absolutely no doubt that Fujifilm colours are stunning. Their inbuilt colour profiles are just lovely. Further more Fuji have spend a considerable amount of effort to make sure those colours are passed on through Adobe products. It's well known that they worked with Adobe with their profiles and film simulations to get raw files as close as possible to the in camera processing. Their Acros simulation  is particularly notable. Certainly Fuji colours aren't "natural". But nor were their film products.

 

Somehow Fuji keep providing a copy of Silkypix. But I don't expect they think anyone will use it. Anyone who hasn't already should download a couple of XPro2/XT2 raw files and try those profiles out.

 

Leica's colours are still evolving. Ignoring the change from CCD to CMOS each new camera has a slightly different colour profile. I like the improvements but Leica's jpegs are still woeful and having different models give slightly different colours can be a workflow pain if you mix cameras on a job. It would do Leica some good to work a bit closer with Adobe to create a set of profiles that really make the sensor sing rather than have users left with no real start point except the two rather dull profiles we have now. Not everyone wants to process every image from scratch, every time. Not everyone wants to make custom profiles. And the majority of those available for free are worth what you pay for them.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd really appreciate a bit of advice here on what people do when processing dngs to improve depth of tonality. I look at images from film, MF digital, and the b&w MM ....and feel like I'm walking into a 3D image. In comparison, i struggle to feel that with images from the M240 or M10. Quite possibly PP issue on my side, given wide latitude of the CMOS sensor - thoughts / advice? Thanks.

 

 If you're OK at getting the colours and basic sliders right your next step will be to explore the curves panel. There's plenty of help on the web (too big a topic for here) that'll get you started. Manipulating the tones in an image with a curve will go a long way to getting you where you want to be.

 

The brightness sliders in the colour panel will also help. Learn these by working in monochrome first and then apply that to colour images later.

 

Gordon

 

* and if all else fails a vignette of -40  and some grain on all you images will create instant "film"

[stefanusj]

Actually no. There's absolutely no doubt that Fujifilm colours are stunning. Their inbuilt colour profiles are just lovely. Further more Fuji have spend a considerable amount of effort to make sure those colours are passed on through Adobe products. It's well known that they worked with Adobe with their profiles and film simulations to get raw files as close as possible to the in camera processing. Their Acros simulation  is particularly notable. Certainly Fuji colours aren't "natural". But nor were their film products.

 

Somehow Fuji keep providing a copy of Silkypix. But I don't expect they think anyone will use it. Anyone who hasn't already should download a couple of XPro2/XT2 raw files and try those profiles out.

 

Leica's colours are still evolving. Ignoring the change from CCD to CMOS each new camera has a slightly different colour profile. I like the improvements but Leica's jpegs are still woeful and having different models give slightly different colours can be a workflow pain if you mix cameras on a job. It would do Leica some good to work a bit closer with Adobe to create a set of profiles that really make the sensor sing rather than have users left with no real start point except the two rather dull profiles we have now. Not everyone wants to process every image from scratch, every time. Not everyone wants to make custom profiles. And the majority of those available for free are worth what you pay for them.

 

Gordon

 

i respect your opinions, but in my experience the color of fuji is really hard to post process. in Ligthroom, leica DNG raw files is already 90% final for me (with camera calibration: "LEICA M10"). 

[Jon Warwick]

Ive never looked at film and thought 3D image but dng files normally look flat right out of the camera. They do this on purpose so you can tweak them easier. If you want the film look with your digital camera try turning the contrast bar in photoshop all the way down. Digital files often have the contrast turned up too much which hides micro-contrast in my opinion. Once you turn that down, the image will generally look softer and hence more deep.

This suggestion has worked really well for me. Thank you so much! It's got me a lot closer to what I want from my images.

Thanks to everyone else for your thoughts too.

[blueuser]

I sold my M240 to finance the M10 but I will try to compare anyway. The M240 is still a very nice camera with a modern sensor. One of the main advantages of the M240 is the battery life and another is the video function if you need that.

But the M10 is just a much faster camera. Not only higher frame rates but also in the overall handling. The menu system is very intuitive and one of the best I have seen on a digital camera.

The viewfinder is brilliant and makes focusing easier even with my Summicron 90 mm at full aperture.

And even the new ISO dial (which I in the beginning considered as a kind of a gimmick) is very useful when you change location between outside and indoors.

The dynamic range is better and the noise at high ISO doesn't show banding before 25000 ISO.

Least but not less important - the camera is very reliable. The M240 occasionally locked and I had to turn it off and on again. I have yet to try that with the M10.

[Arai]

Actually no. There's absolutely no doubt that Fujifilm colours are stunning. Their inbuilt colour profiles are just lovely. Further more Fuji have spend a considerable amount of effort to make sure those colours are passed on through Adobe products. It's well known that they worked with Adobe with their profiles and film simulations to get raw files as close as possible to the in camera processing. Their Acros simulation  is particularly notable. Certainly Fuji colours aren't "natural". But nor were their film products.

 

Somehow Fuji keep providing a copy of Silkypix. But I don't expect they think anyone will use it. Anyone who hasn't already should download a couple of XPro2/XT2 raw files and try those profiles out.

 

Leica's colours are still evolving. Ignoring the change from CCD to CMOS each new camera has a slightly different colour profile. I like the improvements but Leica's jpegs are still woeful and having different models give slightly different colours can be a workflow pain if you mix cameras on a job. It would do Leica some good to work a bit closer with Adobe to create a set of profiles that really make the sensor sing rather than have users left with no real start point except the two rather dull profiles we have now. Not everyone wants to process every image from scratch, every time. Not everyone wants to make custom profiles. And the majority of those available for free are worth what you pay for them.

 

Gordon

I never got quite close for liking Sony, somehow the color isn't pleasing at all to my eyes, muted dan too flat, it required lots of post process imo.

 

I sold all my Canon gear because it was bulky and heavy, it became dead weight while travelling. I don't know any Fuji, tried once xpro2 but didn't like its ovf.

 

First time using Leica M240, somehow someway it connected to me, the menu is simple, the viewfinder, the way you focusing, the color that pop, the rendering is second to none, small, discreet, and it's the most beautiful camera I've ever seen, I fell in love, that's my story into Leica. Neither camera gave me that feeling..

[AnakChan]

[snip!]

But the M10 is just a much faster camera. Not only higher frame rates but also in the overall handling.

[snip!]

This interests me as there hasn't been that much talk about it. Does the M10 start up faster then the Typ240 when powered on? I find my Typ240 is a little slow from power up to being able to fire away.

[elmars]

No, it is almost the same: about 1 to 1,5 seconds.

[FrankX]

I tested the M240 only for a very short time. My impression was that dynamic range is really limited comparing it to the Fuji X-T1 and X-T2. At ISO 3200 exposing for the highlights and lifting the shadows often already resulted in slight banding and a greenish tint. Furthermore, I didn't really like the skin colors of the M240 whilst Fuji colors are in most cases fantastic. However, I really liked quite challenging rangefinder concept. Thus, I patiently waited for the M10.

 

The picture completely changed with the M10: It is relatively easy to get contrasty images with great colors using LR and the Adobe profile. The colors are a little bit comparable with the Fuji Classic Chrome profile but with slightly more saturated colors and higher contrast. Of course, color preference has a lot to do with personal taste. However, for me the colors I get with the M10 are really fantastic!

 

Dynamic range, in my opinion, is significantly improved in day to day usage compared to the M240 but has still not reached the level of the X-T2. You have to be very careful exposing the highlights (i.e. strictly use ETTR approach). However, possibly I have to adapt more to the M10 here. Using the X-T2 and the DR settings, you can get perfectly exposed JPEGs with brilliant colors. M10 JPEGs are still far from that. I do really miss the in-camera raw converter of the Fujis... High ISO of the M10, from my point of view, is at least at the level of the X-T2, maybe slightly better.

 

What's maybe interesting for Fuji users (can anyone confirm that?): The combination M10 + 35 FLE creates much more 'real-looking' images than the Fuji with any of my Fuji lenses. Looking at the Fuji images I never had the impression that the colors are bad or the lenses aren't sharp, but I never had the impression that I am still standing in front of the scene... This is what I get and love with the Leica M10. An probably it's not only me... On 500px I got the following comment: 'Beautiful. I feel as I am standing here'. That exactly describes my feelings with many Leica images. However, it is probably more an effect of the special Leica lens quality. I still don't know.

 

My wife isn't a 'photo nerd' and knows nothing about the Leica look, but she also somehow sees the difference. She real likes the Leica look so far. I am not really sure what makes the difference but I tried to make several test images of different scenes and even tried to get exposure, contrast and colors as close as possible with the M10 and the X-T2. In every(!) case she identified the Leica image and found it much clearer and more lifelike.

 

I don't know what makes the difference. Maybe the mythical 'micro-contrast'? I made some test images at the Leica store with an Summicron APO-50 and an pre-APO 90. The APO-50 was immediately recognized by my wife whereas looking at the Summicron she said: 'The images are looking like a 'normal' photos!'.

 

What has all this to do with the initial question? Depending on your needs it may be better to save your money to get a better (or additional) lens. For example, if you like to shot wide open, using an M240 with an APO-50 in most cases will result in a better image quality than an M10 with a standard Summicron 50. If you're more a low light, indoor wedding photographer, my choice would be the M10 + SLX 50, however. But don't forget: You(!) are making the images, not the camera! It's only a tool. The content of an image is more important than the technical quality. Therefore, the most important thing are your skills and whether you like your camera enough to go out shooting as often as possible. Sometimes we all tend to forget this point...

 

[olgierdc]

This interests me as there hasn't been that much talk about it. Does the M10 start up faster then the Typ240 when powered on? I find my Typ240 is a little slow from power up to being able to fire away.

 

My M10 start up in 1,5s. It's about 0,3s better (I do not have M240 anymore, so that's the time I remember).  The startup time also depends on the SD card, the poor card will make this time worse.

[olgierdc]

I tested the M240 only for a very short time. My impression was that dynamic range is really limited comparing it to the Fuji X-T1 and X-T2. At ISO 3200 exposing for the highlights and lifting the shadows often already resulted in slight banding and a greenish tint. Furthermore, I didn't really like the skin colors of the M240 whilst Fuji colors are in most cases fantastic. However, I really liked quite challenging rangefinder concept. Thus, I patiently waited for the M10.

 

The picture completely changed with the M10: It is relatively easy to get contrasty images with great colors using LR and the Adobe profile. The colors are a little bit comparable with the Fuji Classic Chrome profile but with slightly more saturated colors and higher contrast. Of course, color preference has a lot to do with personal taste. However, for me the colors I get with the M10 are really fantastic!

 

Dynamic range, in my opinion, is significantly improved in day to day usage compared to the M240 but has still not reached the level of the X-T2. You have to be very careful exposing the highlights (i.e. strictly use ETTR approach). However, possibly I have to adapt more to the M10 here. Using the X-T2 and the DR settings, you can get perfectly exposed JPEGs with brilliant colors. M10 JPEGs are still far from that. I do really miss the in-camera raw converter of the Fujis... High ISO of the M10, from my point of view, is at least at the level of the X-T2, maybe slightly better.

 

What's maybe interesting for Fuji users (can anyone confirm that?): The combination M10 + 35 FLE creates much more 'real-looking' images than the Fuji with any of my Fuji lenses. Looking at the Fuji images I never had the impression that the colors are bad or the lenses aren't sharp, but I never had the impression that I am still standing in front of the scene... This is what I get and love with the Leica M10. An probably it's not only me... On 500px I got the following comment: 'Beautiful. I feel as I am standing here'. That exactly describes my feelings with many Leica images. However, it is probably more an effect of the special Leica lens quality. I still don't know.

 

My wife isn't a 'photo nerd' and knows nothing about the Leica look, but she also somehow sees the difference. She real likes the Leica look so far. I am not really sure what makes the difference but I tried to make several test images of different scenes and even tried to get exposure, contrast and colors as close as possible with the M10 and the X-T2. In every(!) case she identified the Leica image and found it much clearer and more lifelike.

 

I don't know what makes the difference. Maybe the mythical 'micro-contrast'? I made some test images at the Leica store with an Summicron APO-50 and an pre-APO 90. The APO-50 was immediately recognized by my wife whereas looking at the Summicron she said: 'The images are looking like a 'normal' photos!'.

 

What has all this to do with the initial question? Depending on your needs it may be better to save your money to get a better (or additional) lens. For example, if you like to shot wide open, using an M240 with an APO-50 in most cases will result in a better image quality than an M10 with a standard Summicron 50. If you're more a low light, indoor wedding photographer, my choice would be the M10 + SLX 50, however. But don't forget: You(!) are making the images, not the camera! It's only a tool. The content of an image is more important than the technical quality. Therefore, the most important thing are your skills and whether you like your camera enough to go out shooting as often as possible. Sometimes we all tend to forget this point...

 

Try to underexpose the photo by 4 EV and slide the exposure on your PC by 4 EV to the right. You will see the power of the M10 compared to the M240. With a low ISO value, the task seems easy, but the M240 does not handle it well. The ISO 1600 test looks very interesting.

[paulsydaus]

Being 4 years newer, the M10 is a better allround camera in almost every way except battery and video. It will also cost around 50% more.

In my view, if you can afford to buy into the latest generation (M10) you won't regret it.

The fact that you are considering both suggests to me you can afford the M10 so really in my view it is a clear decision.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[paulsydaus]

I tested the M240 only for a very short time. My impression was that dynamic range is really limited comparing it to the Fuji X-T1 and X-T2. At ISO 3200 exposing for the highlights and lifting the shadows often already resulted in slight banding and a greenish tint. Furthermore, I didn't really like the skin colors of the M240 whilst Fuji colors are in most cases fantastic. However, I really liked quite challenging rangefinder concept. Thus, I patiently waited for the M10.

 

The picture completely changed with the M10: It is relatively easy to get contrasty images with great colors using LR and the Adobe profile. The colors are a little bit comparable with the Fuji Classic Chrome profile but with slightly more saturated colors and higher contrast. Of course, color preference has a lot to do with personal taste. However, for me the colors I get with the M10 are really fantastic!

 

Dynamic range, in my opinion, is significantly improved in day to day usage compared to the M240 but has still not reached the level of the X-T2. You have to be very careful exposing the highlights (i.e. strictly use ETTR approach). However, possibly I have to adapt more to the M10 here. Using the X-T2 and the DR settings, you can get perfectly exposed JPEGs with brilliant colors. M10 JPEGs are still far from that. I do really miss the in-camera raw converter of the Fujis... High ISO of the M10, from my point of view, is at least at the level of the X-T2, maybe slightly better.

 

What's maybe interesting for Fuji users (can anyone confirm that?): The combination M10 + 35 FLE creates much more 'real-looking' images than the Fuji with any of my Fuji lenses. Looking at the Fuji images I never had the impression that the colors are bad or the lenses aren't sharp, but I never had the impression that I am still standing in front of the scene... This is what I get and love with the Leica M10. An probably it's not only me... On 500px I got the following comment: 'Beautiful. I feel as I am standing here'. That exactly describes my feelings with many Leica images. However, it is probably more an effect of the special Leica lens quality. I still don't know.

 

My wife isn't a 'photo nerd' and knows nothing about the Leica look, but she also somehow sees the difference. She real likes the Leica look so far. I am not really sure what makes the difference but I tried to make several test images of different scenes and even tried to get exposure, contrast and colors as close as possible with the M10 and the X-T2. In every(!) case she identified the Leica image and found it much clearer and more lifelike.

 

I don't know what makes the difference. Maybe the mythical 'micro-contrast'? I made some test images at the Leica store with an Summicron APO-50 and an pre-APO 90. The APO-50 was immediately recognized by my wife whereas looking at the Summicron she said: 'The images are looking like a 'normal' photos!'.

 

What has all this to do with the initial question? Depending on your needs it may be better to save your money to get a better (or additional) lens. For example, if you like to shot wide open, using an M240 with an APO-50 in most cases will result in a better image quality than an M10 with a standard Summicron 50. If you're more a low light, indoor wedding photographer, my choice would be the M10 + SLX 50, however. But don't forget: You(!) are making the images, not the camera! It's only a tool. The content of an image is more important than the technical quality. Therefore, the most important thing are your skills and whether you like your camera enough to go out shooting as often as possible. Sometimes we all tend to forget this point...

You need to try a noctilux. If you enjoy realistic colours, trust me it blows other Leica lenses away.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bilbrown]

I've had the M240 and M246 bodies since 2014 and 2016, and the M10 since a week after it's release date. I also shoot with the SL and Q, which I have had the latter (SL) for over a year now. And if I want to go way back, the M8 was my first digital M, and the original M Monochrom was my second digital M (both are sitting neatly on my shelf at the moment, but I still use them time to time if I want a particular look that I can't get with the CMOSIS bodies). So with that background let me give you my honest opinion of the M10 vs the M240 (or M246/M240-P with a faster buffer).

 

First, I will say, for the FF Leica bodies, and the rangefinder bodies specifically (M).. he M10 is quite likely the best digital rangefinder to date. Its fast, easy to handle, and responsive. I think the colors out of the M10 are more blue or pastel than the M240 - which seems to have more of a yellowish hue - but that doesn't mean much of you are working with DNG and using ACR, LR or CP1 to process your images. The added usable dynamic range is impressive, as I can shoot F8+ in very low light and still get a great deal of detail at ISO 5000-10000, with the M240 you are lucky to get a usable file at ISO 3200-6400, so you will still need fast glass in low light or use (shudder) a flashgun - I use the SF 20 or 24D as opposed to the SF 40 on the Ms because I prefer the small size. Others may find this odd, and want the newer flashgun. More purists think I am nuts and just don't use it at all... but I digress.

 

So there it is, if you want the best Leica digital rangefinder to date, wait for the M10.

 

Now, some REAL WORLD FACTS.

 

There is typically NO NEED to shoot above ISO 3200 in any real world shooting experiences IMHO. If you don't have the light you won't be able to get a good shot anyway.

 

The M10 has 5fps and an INSANE 100JPG or 36 DNG continuous shooting before the buffer stops and slows it down. That's cool, but I rarely do it. I don't think the rangefinder is a camera most people use to spray-and-pray and this function is cool, but not needed, the M240s 3fps is fine for MOST situations.

 

The M10, as others have pointed out, has NO VIDEO whatsoever. Cool, the M240s video had no image stabilization etc... but it is nice that in a pinch you can get cinema-like HD video from your ONE CAMERA SET UP and LENS. Stabilize it by hand, as in the old days, or use a tripod or monopod and viola - you have a little movie maker with some of the best cinema-like optics available! Not missed with the M10, but really, if you have only ONE camera - wouldn't you want to AT LEAST have the option???

 

The M240 has MUCH MUCH better battery life. The M10 battery is livable, but not even close. Kind of sad really.

 

If you like the option of transferring your images to your phone, the APP is nice, but you can also just get a EiFi card for the M240. Easy.

 

And lastly, BOTH cameras have the requisite 24MP sensor-size, as does the SL and the Q. Only the S has a larger sensor for a premium price in both the CCD 006/SE and CMOSIS 007 versions. For printing, and I am telling you this from EXPERIENCE, you will get the same size image out of ANY of the 135mm FF crop sensors in the Leica line up. Only the Monochrom cameras - both of them - will give you more detail and in fact can ACTUALLY print larger interpolated than the color files of the M240, M10, SL or Q. If you want even more than that - shoot an M6, M7, MA, something and shoot some slide film at ASA 100 - and pray - or just shoot medium format, any. The M10 and M240 are comparable on the printing end.

 

My conclusion is, to be TOTALLY HONEST, the ONLY reason you would want the M10 is to have the best RANGEFINDER experience in a digital M, and the expanded ISO. If you just want a GREAT camera that happens to be a Leica rangefinder - the M240 is still DAMN good and worth your money... especially on the used market. Right now I am looking at a used M-P typ 240 right below this post as I write this for USD 3,600, a STEAL. Then when your M10 becomes available, sell it for the same or a little more and put the cost toward the M10 if you really want it.

 

 

edit:// OH and BTW, those that are comparing the Leica M to a Fuji X-Trans sensor or the Sony in my opinion are not looking for the same type of image rendering or experience that you get with a Leica in general. I have had Fuji and Sony A7 series cameras, as well as cameras like the Pentax 646Z that have a Sony sensor. They aren't the same, and they aren't going to give you the same image quality OOC as the Leica bodies coupled with Leica lenses. My friends that have the X-Pro 2 say it is a horribly slow shooting experience from what they are used to with say a simple Canon or Nikon DSLR, and they STILL have to do a lot more post processing than they expected to. They are AMAZED that I can get an almost completely finished image out of my M, SL, Q or S cameras. They are literally blown away.

 

And dig this: My M8 is still worth about $1300-1800 10 years later. My A7 depreciated to 1/3 of the price because Sony keeps upgrading or "perfecting" their product.

 

Brand longevity. Sony used to have a great laptop too, that was competing with Apple - right? Where is that laptop series now??

 

Don't believe the hype about all these damn *extra* functions. All crazy bullshit!

 

Keep it LEAN AND MEAN like a Leica. My 2¢

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[luigi bertolotti]

Being 4 years newer, the M10 is a better allround camera in almost every way except battery and video. It will also cost around 50% more.

In my view, if you can afford to buy into the latest generation (M10) you won't regret it.

The fact that you are considering both suggests to me you can afford the M10 so really in my view it is a clear decision.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree completely : if money doesn't matter, M10 is newer, with a clear minus  and many improvements over M240 : should I had decided to skip M240 and continue with M8 for 4 years more, I have hadn't hesitation (being not at all interested in video).