M10 - Serious Landscape work?

[bozu_shutterbugger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks everyone for your support. You really motivated me for using Leica for this trip of mine but, as i got near to the trip, my confidence on Leica started to dwindle not because of Leica but because of my lack of experience with Leica. I said to my self, most people on this forum are pro users if not pro photographers. I might come back empty handed. I ended up buying Canon 5ds + 24mm+135mm & 50mm. All F2 or faster. I got ready for the trip with my m240, M10 and the canon back. Boy was i wrong, Leica is amazing. i saw people struggling with focus during sunrise but i wasnt. People were trying to focus stack and struggling, i wasnt. it was just simply amazing. Bryan Peterson was there with us one day and he found out I had Leica, he jumped at the opportunity to show the students how to compose. He took my M10+Trielmar and with a thud/cluck placed it on a crack that lead to the lake. The crack was a bit wet etc and i almost stopped breathing. 

[Advertisement]

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

[bozu_shutterbugger]

This was at Little Hunters Beach @ 6 ish am. 

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!

[jmahto]

I smile when my Canikon friends try to focus on infinity using AF.

Edited October 9, 2017 by jmahto

[pgh]

I smile when my Canikon friends try to focus on infinity using AF.

I used Nikons for years and never had an issue with that. Now that I've switched to Sony (for my other system) I still don't. I don't find the Leica a better camera in that sense. I enjoy using it more, but if it weren't for the sentimentality and the ability to see outside the frame I'd be hard pressed to make a good argument for it. I'm torn every time I go out and shoot (I primarily do landscape work) because I want to use my Leica but my Sony gives me better files to work with at a similar weight and still good user experience. 

 

I think if we're being rational we'll admit the Leica wins on feel and user experience maybe (although the EVF experience is pretty amazing if you're technically minded)...and not much else...there's really not a lot of hard evidence or practical features that beat out current technologies. Focusing, composing, file quality etc are all generally superior elsewhere. That said, I'll keep using my M10 - Richard Thaler will probably be able to best explain why. 

Edited October 10, 2017 by pgh

[bozu_shutterbugger]

I used Nikons for years and never had an issue with that. Now that I've switched to Sony (for my other system) I still don't..

 

Agree with you about the experience piece but respectfully I don’t on the other things you said. I have used the Sony a6000, 7r and 7s. While the 7r2 is a good camera it fails to beat the Canon or Nikon in my opinion. ( discussion for another forum). What you said is very subjective. It all depends on what you are really trying to do with these cameras and how much do you know how to operate them. For eg: try focusing the Sony at night, hmm will that focus by wire help. Image quality ? Very subjective indeed. There is a thread on this about the M10. Yes if you fancy post processing every photo and print a billboard out of it the may be stick with Sony. I find these cameras to be total different systems. It’s like saying Fuji XT2 is better than Fuji XPro2. Ok, it depends. They are both at the same price point and yet they both do well in the market. May be comparing SL to the Sony 7 or 9 system might be a comparison to discuss. Anyway in my opinion both are great camera systems and have their own place and one needs to know which one is for which. ... like I found this the hard way. Thanks for your comments

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Reciprocity]

Part of my annual revenues as a full time shooter come from landscapes. I had three ad assignments this week using Fall foliage and all were landscapes and exteriors. While I always seem to have a Leica body with me on shoots, it is not always the tool chosen for the task. For example, on these assignments this week, I used my D850 on one, Hasselblad digital and film on another and 4x5 film on the first one which was commissioned black and white work. The Leica invariably fills the role of journalistic or people images even while I am out doing the landscape work, its always handy. 

 

Yes, I can get good landscapes from may Leica cameras, but I tend to do much better in making compositionally refined images with other tools and end up being far more productive as a result.

[Simon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Like Reciprocity, I don’t think of the M as a landscape camera, and that’s ok! If I was seriously into landscapes and I was loaded (neither of which are true) I might try the Hasselblad X1D. I’ve no interest in carrying anything bigger than that ever! I’ll leave that to the pros.

 

M-system for me is the ideal casual and amateur camera, perfect for discreet, street, social occasions and the night but capable enough in other ways. Capable of producing results a cut above most of the 35 mm competition, especially because of the Leica glass and its heritage of wonderful, characterful lenses.

 

Though at a similar price point, I don’t see X1D as competing with M, though I do think in time it will compete with the SL or even S.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Simon

[pgh]

Agree with you about the experience piece but respectfully I don’t on the other things you said. I have used the Sony a6000, 7r and 7s. While the 7r2 is a good camera it fails to beat the Canon or Nikon in my opinion. ( discussion for another forum). What you said is very subjective. It all depends on what you are really trying to do with these cameras and how much do you know how to operate them. For eg: try focusing the Sony at night, hmm will that focus by wire help. Image quality ? Very subjective indeed. There is a thread on this about the M10. Yes if you fancy post processing every photo and print a billboard out of it the may be stick with Sony. I find these cameras to be total different systems. It’s like saying Fuji XT2 is better than Fuji XPro2. Ok, it depends. They are both at the same price point and yet they both do well in the market. May be comparing SL to the Sony 7 or 9 system might be a comparison to discuss. Anyway in my opinion both are great camera systems and have their own place and one needs to know which one is for which. ... like I found this the hard way. Thanks for your comments

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Image quality in the objective and measurable sense (dynamic range, low noise, high resolution and sharpness) my Rx1rII and A7RII beat the M10 - and when it comes to printing larger than 16x24 the win becomes more apparent than I'd like. Image 'character' is a different discussion that leicaphiles love to have, and yes, M lenses do have it.

 

As far as focusing at night - well, I guess that is subjective - I took to the Sony specifically because it was the first camera that existed that I could shoot handheld at night, utilizing AF and the EVF giving me more precision than any Leica or SLR ever had - and yields better IQ than either at ISOs like 1600 or 3200. So yea, I've focused with it at night extensively. It's basically why I bought the camera!

 

I shot Nikons for years - and yea, there are some arguments you can make for them - and you're right that is another discussion - but when it comes to IQ in the objective sense - unless you're stepping up to MF - the A7RII is still the standard - I guess maybe the D850 will change things but at that size I'm not sure why you wouldn't look to an X1D or GFX50s if you're not doing high speed stuff. 

[LeicaR10]

Bozu_shutterbugger,   The M10 is excellent as a landscape camera along with the SL and MM.  I use it extensively for landscape photography.   I have found private clients and collectors of landscape photography especially like the color of the M10 and SL.  I use to shoot with the S system that is most excellent, but that got burdensome on long-distance hikes.  The M10 filled that void superbly with the M lenses.  Feel free to look in my public website galleries for Leica M landscape images.  www.mark-christian.pixels.com  r/ Mark

Edited October 14, 2017 by LeicaR10

[M11 for me]

Image quality in the objective and measurable sense (dynamic range, low noise, high resolution and sharpness) my Rx1rII and A7RII beat the M10 - and when it comes to printing larger than 16x24 the win becomes more apparent than I'd like. Image 'character' is a different discussion that leicaphiles love to have, and yes, M lenses do have it.

 

I think that it gets a bit dangerous if in this thread as everybody gives statements 360 degrees around all possible points. phg now posted a clear argument. I would appreciate if we just could stick to that for a while as these are the most important points when judging the IQ. Of course there are aspects as availability of lenses etc etc etc. It would be more interesting not to mix up everything. That is only my modest whish.

 

I am interested in this because of the following: Just a few days ago I was out to photograph the autums woods. I had with me the Canon 5Mk4 with 70-200mm and 16-35 plus LEE filters and stand. PLUS OF COURSE THE M10. And at the end of my Image Processing in LR I came to the conclusion that all my M10 images were much sharper and had much better colour rendering compared to the Canon outcome that was disappointing. Now it was possible to adapt the colors of the Canon pics in LR to come also to the colors of the Leica but this was very difficult to do. There are some Canon images that are as sharp as the Leica. But contrary to Canon Leica offered a stable high quality and finally most pictures that I published in my smugmug were from the M10. I love this camera even though I have only 28, 50 and 75mm lenses.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Alex U.

[almoore]

I smile when my Canikon friends try to focus on infinity using AF.

 

Why? It works. 

[M11 for me]

Why? It works.

 

Of course it works. Focusing infinity with AF is the least problem ;-)

[jmahto]

Why? It works. 

I didn't say it doesn't work for AF. In comparison M is simpler, just a matter of turning the focus ring to infinity stop. There is no hunting. 

 

MF also helps you to understand subject distance and DOF. For landscape, one can chose to cover as much foreground as possible using DOF rather than simply focusing on infinity (by backing off from infinity stop a desired amount based on DOF scale).

Edited October 14, 2017 by jmahto

[tobey bilek]

I used Nikons for years and never had an issue with that. Now that I've switched to Sony (for my other system) I still don't. I don't find the Leica a better camera in that sense. I enjoy using it more, but if it weren't for the sentimentality and the ability to see outside the frame I'd be hard pressed to make a good argument for it. I'm torn every time I go out and shoot (I primarily do landscape work) because I want to use my Leica but my Sony gives me better files to work with at a similar weight and still good user experience. 

 

I think if we're being rational we'll admit the Leica wins on feel and user experience maybe (although the EVF experience is pretty amazing if you're technically minded)...and not much else...there's really not a lot of hard evidence or practical features that beat out current technologies. Focusing, composing, file quality etc are all generally superior elsewhere. That said, I'll keep using my M10 - Richard Thaler will probably be able to best explain why. 

 

 

You fail to appreciate reds that record as red, not orange.  All my Nikons do it and my photo processors Canon does too.  Then there is the issue of micro contrast.  Not necessary for portraits,  but nice for everything else.

[almoore]

I didn't say it doesn't work for AF. In comparison M is simpler, just a matter of turning the focus ring to infinity stop. There is no hunting. 

 MF also helps you to understand subject distance and DOF...

There's no 'hunting' with a decent AF camera and no reason to assume that people using AF cameras don't have an understanding of depth of field issues.

[Neko]

 IMO  high resolution and broad dynamic range are important factors to take into account regarding landscape photography. Medium format digital (50-100mb) or film and large format cameras ( Arca, Toyo-view, Linhof..) should be the appropriate tools.

 For long hikes Sony A7RII or Leica MM. The MM1 in combination with the 50APO or the 90APO produces outstanding landscape files. I did not try the 21 Superelmar yet.

[pgh]

You fail to appreciate reds that record as red, not orange.  All my Nikons do it and my photo processors Canon does too.  Then there is the issue of micro contrast.  Not necessary for portraits,  but nice for everything else.

Given that I make my living at this I'll just say that if I failed to appreciate that, I wouldn't be doing my job. Canons and Nikons render quite, quite differently...Canons noticeably warmer out of box. 

And my Nikons rendered my reds as reds on screen and in print - I'm not sure what was going on with your tools or your workflow. Regardless, a mild (easily correctable - which I never had to do when it came to reds) color shift is not a reason to switch systems as there are way more legitimate workflow headaches that pop up. I look at and make prints - that's where the final judgement is made, personally. I love using my Leica as I'd stated but I'd love it more if it had the modern Sony sensor in it, because it's better in an objective sense - especially concerning the traditional demands of landscape photography. 

[Reciprocity]

 

 

I shot Nikons for years - and yea, there are some arguments you can make for them - and you're right that is another discussion - but when it comes to IQ in the objective sense - unless you're stepping up to MF - the A7RII is still the standard - I guess maybe the D850 will change things but at that size I'm not sure why you wouldn't look to an X1D or GFX50s if you're not doing high speed stuff. 

 

 

I'm not at all familiar with the A7 series cameras but if it has the option to use an all electronic shutter in conjunction with the self timer like the 850 does, this really steps up the usable resolution enormously. I am seeing images out of my D850 in using live view, silent shutter mode and the self timer that are often exceeding the sharpness of my 50MP medium format digital back.  

 

Being able to completely eliminate any movement in the camera at all during the exposure is allowing me to get the most out of top shelf glass and use the lowest ISO possible, the resulting files are then able to be interpolated to a much larger size than inherently possible with a camera like the D810.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tailwagger]

Being able to completely eliminate any movement in the camera at all during the exposure is allowing me to get the most out of top shelf glass and use the lowest ISO possible, the resulting files are then able to be interpolated to a much larger size than inherently possible with a camera like the D810.  

 

To my mind this is strong argument for enabling an e-shutter on the M. 

[jonoslack]

Image quality in the objective and measurable sense (dynamic range, low noise, high resolution and sharpness) my Rx1rII and A7RII beat the M10 - and when it comes to printing larger than 16x24 the win becomes more apparent than I'd like. Image 'character' is a different discussion that leicaphiles love to have, and yes, M lenses do have

 

 

Hi There PGH

I quite agree with you, in terms of dynamic range / low noise and high resolution the newer Sony sensors are wonderful (I’m sure you’ll excuse me for leaving out sharpness - such a complicated concept) - but you miss out a relevant issue - many of those around here are wanting to use their M lenses on the Sony cameras, and at this point the design of the sensor (cover glass thickness, sensor well design) becomes another really tangible and measurable problem.

 

There is a general feeling that this only relates to older wide angle designs, but even modern lenses like the 50 ‘lux Asph suffer really quite badly on sensors with thicker cover glass (like those on the Sony cameras). I know, I’ve spent a lot of time doing comparisons.

 

I could have a big argument about IQ already being quite sufficient for several years on many cameras (but I won’t bother). But I think that if you are requiring the absolute in terms of Image Quality then rule number one is:

 

Use the Lenses Designed for the Camera

 

. . . And this applies absolutely as much for the Sony cameras with M lenses as any other combination