M10 or my M240

[drew051]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi guys, I am probably beating a dead horse here but wanted a quick bit of advice. Last year for xmas I got a m240 and I am really loving it. I have used it a lot and love it! I'm starting to wonder if I should get on a list for a m10. The way I see it is, I should just use the 240 and get the use then maybe pick up a 10 when they are a bit more available.

 

For someone new to the M line. What would you do?

 

Thanks!

[happymac]

It's a sad truth, that — even your are in deep love with a technical device — the successor makes you doubt about your feelings. But another truth is, that the thing you hold in your hands doesn't loose any of the characteristics, you love it for. So give the 240 a chance to keep on living with you for more than the time you've spent with. The M10 won't make you a better photographer.

Edited May 31, 2017 by happymac

[Advertisement]

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

[a.noctilux]

Use your M240, then decide in some months if you want M10.

 

This is what I reply in this question, of M10 or M240 :

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/272791-leica-m10-vs-leica-m240/

 

[

I have kept M240/262 after buying M10 for different reasons (back-up, better battery life, maybe video if one day I need it).

 

- since M10, I can say that M10 is used much more than those 2 other.

- thinner, less buttons, easy to change/see ISO, bigger finder with huge eye-relief make that pleasure to use M10 is more than the other 2

- result are the same with a bit of difference in colors in ISO to 3200,

- AWB is cleaner for M10

- better Visoflex, a joy to use peaking

 

That said, M240 family Leica are capable of first class result.

 

]

[Ecar]

Spend the money on glass instead. It will probably improve make your photography better and/or more enjoyable than a switch from M240 to M10. 

[Al_OOF]

I do not have the 240 but every week I see the photos of a friend who owns it. Instead I have the M9 and now the new M10. For me to go from 9 to 10 is worth much more (and maybe keeping both of them). Moving from 240 to 10 I do not see it so decisive.

Follow the advice of Ecar and in future you will be able to take the M11.

[olgierdc]

I think the problem is more economical.

The same person who bought M240 3 years ago would be more likely to buy the M10.

Edited May 31, 2017 by olgierdc

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do not have the 240 but every week I see the photos of a friend who owns it. Instead I have the M9 and now the new M10. For me to go from 9 to 10 is worth much more (and maybe keeping both of them). Moving from 240 to 10 I do not see it so decisive.

Follow the advice of Ecar and in future you will be able to take the M11.

 

 

I found the move from M9 to M240 to be very rewarding. The M240 was a better camera in almost every respect, so even if the margins of each improvement were small, the total effect was significant.

 

I find the M10 an equally large step up from the M240, probably even bigger. It is a substantially better camera: easier to use, even quicker and more accurate to focus, superior files at all ISOs but particularly higher settings, meaning that you have far more flexibility in how you shoot, which lenses and apertures you use and so on. These alone, aside from other smaller benefits, set the M10 apart from all pervious digital Ms in my opinion.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Having one of each......

 

If you shoot with lenses like the 135APO, 90AA, 75 'lux, Noctilux.... then you'll see easier and a higher hit rate with RF focusing. If not then the focusing isn't much different and you'll get a more responsive camera, a bit smaller, better EVF at the expense of battery life and video functionality.

 

I am pleased to have an M10. But I am keeping my M-P instead of having two M10's as I only need the better rangefinder occasionally when I use "difficult" lenses.

 

Gordon

[riswanc]

Unless u shoot higher iso, i think m240 quite capable

 

I see no significant different up to iso 1600, whereas iso 3200 and above might not be an ideal situation

 

May be invest on the lens is wiser

 

 

Instagram @jakontil

[Peter H]

Unless u shoot higher iso, i think m240 quite capable

 

I see no significant different up to iso 1600, whereas iso 3200 and above might not be an ideal situation

 

May be invest on the lens is wiser

 

 

Instagram @jakontil

Out of interest, have you been using both?

 

I think there are more differences between the files than simply higher ISO performance. Whether you like or value the differences is a different matter. I prefer the colours of the M10 which I think are more natural-looking. Sometimes they can look a little subdued as a result, but a tiny boost in saturation easily resolves that.

 

There are differences though.

[jaapv]

I found the move from M9 to M240 to be very rewarding. The M240 was a better camera in almost every respect, so even if the margins of each improvement were small, the total effect was significant.

 

I find the M10 an equally large step up from the M240, probably even bigger. It is a substantially better camera: easier to use, even quicker and more accurate to focus, superior files at all ISOs but particularly higher settings, meaning that you have far more flexibility in how you shoot, which lenses and apertures you use and so on. These alone, aside from other smaller benefits, set the M10 apart from all pervious digital Ms in my opinion.

I only added  M240 because of the EVF, LV, Video etc. Even now, I will use the M9 as easily as I do the M240.

[colint544]

On upgrading every few years - I freelance for a number of national newspapers, but back in 2001, about 80% of my work was with just one - The Scotsman. In that year, that newspaper got rid of all their film processing machinery, forcing us freelancers, practically overnight, to either switch to digital or go and work elsewhere. Fortunately I was a Nikon guy, and the Nikon D1 had just come out. I think it was two megapixels, but it was the first practical pro digital camera. I had to retire my beloved F5s, and buy a D1 and a 14mm lens. That cost a lot of money but it had to be done.

 

The quality from the D1 was great - I used to marvel at how crisp and grainless the images were, both on the computer screen, and across half a page of a broadsheet newspaper. Before the D1, digital pictures looked terrible compared to film. The D1 was when everything really changed. It was so good, that photographers who had invested tens of thousands of pounds in the Canon system were ditching all their gear  and switching to Nikon, at huge financial cost.

 

Since then, I've gone through the D2h, the D3, and now use a Canon EOS 1DX. Compared to film, digital cameras are now light years ahead. Colours, image quality, high ISO and general flexibility are in a different league. We all take it for granted these days. How quickly the extraordinary becomes ordinary.

 

Leica didn't launch their M8 until digital was pretty well established. So there never was a digital M which was obviously inferior to film. Images from the M8 were, and are, superb. I think one of Leica's goals with the M8 (aside from trying to save the company) was to be at least a very good alternative to film. I think they managed that, and they certainly did with the M9.

 

For my personal digital work, I use a Leica M Monochrom mk1. I bought it new in 2012, and I couldn't be parted from it. The experience of using it is very close to shooting an analogue M. The results, especially in bad light, are astounding. In many ways the M Mono mk1 blows film out of the water. I have no desire to upgrade. I hope the camera gives me many more years of use, and I will be sad when it finally cannot be used any more. I suppose then I'll have to upgrade. 

 

My laboured point is, that we're really spoiled these days with digital cameras. There was a point where each new model was vastly better than its predecessor. We've gone past that now, way past the practical limitations of film, and we're now into vanishingly incremental improvements. How good does a digital camera now really need to be?

Edited June 1, 2017 by colint544

[Kwesi]

I agree with everything Colin says above. I have had an M240 for 3 years now and recently added an an M246. Befor that I had an M9P for about a year. I love my M's and have no desire for an M10 in its current version. BUT! If this is your first digital M, I completely understand wanting to start your journey with the current model. It's a powerful boost psychologically. I say go for it!

[@ndy_ellis]

Very helpful - I'm down to buy an M10 but it will be my first Leica.  I hope it will last many years and take me out of the regular upgrade cycle that the rapid advances in digital hardware have lured me into over the last ten years.

[riswanc]

Out of interest, have you been using both?

 

I think there are more differences between the files than simply higher ISO performance. Whether you like or value the differences is a different matter. I prefer the colours of the M10 which I think are more natural-looking. Sometimes they can look a little subdued as a result, but a tiny boost in saturation easily resolves that.

 

There are differences though.

Hi Peter,

 

Yes i have used both since M9, for its characteristics you might be wright, for natural color that could be possible, but in terms of quality, i believe the m240 to certain iso, is on par as M10

 

 

Instagram @jakontil

[bocaburger]

I only buy demo or pre-owned certified Leica digital bodies, so I'm planning on waiting until those turn up in numbers. Then I'll see how I feel about it.