Is M-10 significantly better than Fuji mirrorless?

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nice write up here https://stephencosh.com/2017/07/30/three-months-with-the-leica-m10/

[jaapv]

Not really. He is still feeding the "fat 240" myth, whilst it has been demonstrated over and over again that the difference to the M9 is a full half-millimetre.

[Advertisement]

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

[pedaes]

Interesting comparison as the M9 isn't exactly slim. I was concentrating on the possitive M10 points and not looking for an arguement, but when does fact become myth?

[jaapv]

Wel, the problem is that he obviously was not able to adjust his workflow to get excellent colour out of the M240 - which, I'll admit was a bit of a challenge on the first firmware, but still quite possible.

That points out one of the lesser-mentioned plusses of the M10. For the first time, Leica got the colours right on a digital M straight out of the gate. With all others it took one or more firmware updates.

[jaapv]

Interesting comparison as the M9 isn't exactly slim. I was concentrating on the possitive M10 points and not looking for an arguement, but when does fact become myth?

When the M8 was exactly the same size as well. It is all Leica's fault, they included the thumb rest in the body size specification, adding a virtual 4mm compared to the M9 and the IFNM* picked it up.

 

*Internet Fake News Machine

[Pjay]

One of my *other* cameras is an X-T2, which is really quite pleasant to use.  Totally useless for any sort of action photography in my experience, but great as a walk-around camera.  The value for money with the 56mm f1.2 lens puts into perspective the cost of Leica glass! In fact that lens is the only reason I still keep the Fujifilm camera at all.  The Xtrans files tend to be in the region of 45 Mb, and can still be difficult to process.  I refuse to subscribe to CC and my version of CS6 cannot open X-T2 raw files, so I have to use Iridient developer.

 

Funny thing is that now I tend to use the Fujifilm camera for eBay photos, but use the M10 for anything more serious.... 

[Tragg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not really. He is still feeding the "fat 240" myth, whilst it has been demonstrated over and over again that the difference to the M9 is a full half-millimetre.

Are you suggesting that earlier Leica digitals were more or less the same as the M-10 in terms of body dimensions and that only Typ 240 is larger – and that by just half a millimetre? If this is the case then Leica itself is guilty of perpetuating this myth. I quote “The Leica M10 marks the return to precisely these dimensions (those of an of analog M-Camera).” Perhaps I have misunderstood your post?

[ken_tanaka]

Hello Tragg,

"What would I gain over the Fuji (which I intend to keep regardless) in terms of image quality?"

 

Although I do no currently have the X-E2 I did own one for quite some time and now have other Fujifilm cameras. I've also been a long-time Leica M owner and currently have an M10.

 

I think you might not be looking at the matter from the best direction. The "image quality" from both cameras is normally excellent. But that's rarely the real point with amateur photography. Longing for a Leica is generally not about tchnical image characteristics but more about the experience of feeling like a "photographer". Quite frankly, as a more contemporary system featuring excellent auto-focus and other perks in an interchangeable lens system (with outstanding primes and zooms) the Fuji runs rings around the Leica M in terms of sheer versatility and capability. And the X-E2's faux-rangefinder body design gives owners just a bit of the feeling of an M.

 

Conversely, the M10 is a lovely digital homage to the obsolete 35mm rangefinder. The handcrafting of the body and lenses is unparalleled. The optical color and gemetric qualities of many M lenses are superb, although in today's world of increasingly sophisticated digital corrections that's not as wide of a bragging margin as it used to be. And, of course, all of the conceits and intrinsic limits of a true rangefinder system are present in the M10. (Articially inconvenient battery & memory card access, inability to focus closer than 3 feet, inability to use the rangefinder for very wide lenses, etc.). To Leica owners that's all part of the charm.

 

The real question is NOT which camera produces "better" images. The real question is what's the better camera system for YOU to produce images. A camera, even a very expensive camera, won't help you make any picures if it's at home. I very much enjoy using my Leicas but they are not, and could never be, my daily working cameras mainly because they are just too inflexible and limited.

[jaapv]

Are you suggesting that earlier Leica digitals were more or less the same as the M-10 in terms of body dimensions and that only Typ 240 is larger – and that by just half a millimetre? If this is the case then Leica itself is guilty of perpetuating this myth. I quote “The Leica M10 marks the return to precisely these dimensions (those of an of analog M-Camera).” Perhaps I have misunderstood your post?

 

No, you haven't.

I have an M8, M9, Monochrom1 and M(Typ 240) and the bodies are exactly the same size-bar the 0.5 mm. Except for the depth, they are the same dimensions as the newer M film bodies from the M6TTL onwards.

The M(typ240) is slightly heavier, mainly because of the larger battery.

The M10 is a few (4, I think) mm thinner (much appreciated by many of us, a few others prefer the thicker bodies and some, like me, don't care), but the other dimensions are the same, so it is much like the M6 TTL and M7.

If you want a real Film-M body size you will have to look to the M6 Classic and older, but even those are quite a bit more substantial than the real Leica film bodies, the Barnack LTM cameras.

[Frankie]

In professional aerial digital imaging, a “camera/firmware/post-processing computer” system starts at $2million…serious enough???

 

A professional specification is GSD [Ground Sampling Distance] or pixel footprint size. You won’t find much literature in this subject yet…must first be written up by someone and debated in the academic community for a while…

 

Technically:

 

Lens Focal length/sensor pixel size = imaging distance [net flying height]/GSD.

 

The concept was founded on Similar Triangle principle…been in use nearly a century now; by Zeiss or WILD-Heerbrugg [ordered to rename itself Leica Geosystem in 1991]…or anyone else.

 

 

A 24Mp FF sensor with 6-micron pixel size [as in an M10] with whatever lens FL used has the same ratio as a 24Mp APS-C sensor with 4-micron pixel size [as in X-Trans III] if mounted with its [crop-factor] equivalent FL…therefore resolvable objects at any distance is the same. Distance here mean focal distance rather than net flying height; and object resolution is the same as GSD. So, the two different sensors are the same in resolution…

 

The caveats here are:

• is the noise in a 4-micron Fuji pixel well- or better controlled than a 6-micron Leica pixel???
• [of course], the lens mounted is the key…but I use adapted LTM/M-lenses in my Fuji…
• As to the cameras…I do know for a fact that Fuji AF is better than Leica-M AF…hands down.
• Either camera could break at the most inopportune time…thus reliability unknown.
• AND…simplicity is in the user’s frame of mind…   

Edited August 5, 2017 by Frankie

[arno_nyhm]

I own a Leica M-3 and a Fuji XE-2, both of which I enjoy using(...). I'm tempted by the M-10 (...)  but obtaining one would entail a significant investment. What would I gain over the Fuji (...)?

 

the fuji lacks an OVF and a rangefinder. it compensates by having an up-to-date EVF that allows lifeviewfocussing (which the M10 would as well when it sports the EVF). and then there ist this so called Autofocus-thing on the XE-2...

 

 

(...) in terms of image quality?

 

without having ever used an XE-2 i gues: nothing. maybe the FF-Sensor of the M10 allowing some longer wideangles might get handy, but thats it.

 

For me, its just the Rangefinder. and thats enough.

[mhicks]

It's been said directly and hinted at obliquely in this entire thread: the experience of shooting is what sets the M10 apart from any other camera I've ever held. I don't know if you can rent the M10 yet - I have one so I've never checked - but I would just wait until you can rent one for a week and experience it. From taking photos all the way to framing a few. Then decide. You will not find the answer by looking at test patterns, photos online, or by talking with people here.

[jaapv]

You can just as well rent an M240, the rangefinder experience is the same.

[Tragg]

You can just as well rent an M240, the rangefinder experience is the same.

Presumably similar to using my M-3

[Frankie]

Leica's reverse-Galilean VF since the M4 barely covers a 35mm FL...the M10 is said to be wider in FoV [but only slightly], hopefully the viewing is better. No one had made any scientific comparison...such as Xm wide in FoV at Ym focal distance, at least I've not read any here or in other Forum around.

 

Aside from FoV, RF acuity/accuracy is presumably the same...the insignificant increase in view magnification [from 0.72 to 0.73] won't amount to much and physical base-length hasn't increased. I'll have to wait until someone has a demo unit to show or a spare to rent to satisfy myself...might take a while.

 

Yes...the essential control are physical...aperture, shutter speed and focusing...plus ISO now...all well and good. I could imagine operating an M10 just like my M2 using Sunny-16. And no more ugly fat brick of a body...at long last. 

 

I have little doubt the sensor resolution is Leica's best...but no better in resolution than a 24Mp APS-C X-Trans III [see Post 30]...

 

I have money to buy toys...but Leica [dealers] don't have stock [yet???]. 

Edited August 5, 2017 by Frankie

[arno_nyhm]

Presumably similar to using my M-3

 

more or less. more like an M2 or M6 with 0.72 finder, which is quite a different experience from using an M3.

 

personally i love the 0.72 viewfinder of the M2, cannot find the said-to-be difference to the M10 despite from a bunch of lines that i don need but that dont bother me too much, AND i never liked the M3's viewfinder of 0.85. (actually it seems like i am the only one to dislike the M3 here or at least to admit so. ) therefore i wouldnt buy an M10 without having made the experienc of using that kind of finder.

 

 

I don't know if you can rent the M10 yet - I have one so I've never checked - but I would just wait until you can rent one for a week and experience it.

 

i'd rather buy an M6. should be around the same price as r3enting an M10. and you could still sell it afterwards or trade it in for the M10 (but why would you want to do so?)

Edited August 5, 2017 by arno_nyhm

[Peter H]

The M10 is my favourite Leica yet, including my film Leicas.

It's the one that gives me most pleasure to use and the best results I'm capable of, in virtually all the photographic situations I find myself in where long lenses aren't required.

I also prefer it to my delightful Fuji X Pro 2, which is a remarkable camera in its own right. In most circumstances the M10 is quicker and more predictable for me to use. Its excellent combination of noise pattern and high sensitivity, it's beautifully subtle and flexible rendition of colour and of course its whole control and viewfinder arrangement sets it apart from any camera I have used. (in combination with its marvellous little lenses of course)

I also enjoyed my M240 but the M10 is a very big step forward, proving to me that small but important increments in many areas can add up to very substantial improvements overall. 

 

So yes, I do think the M10 is significantly better than the Fuji for me and the way I like to use my cameras, but the Fuji is still an excellent camera which could easily be my only camera if need be, and with it I would still be a happy photographer

Edited August 6, 2017 by Peter H

[mhicks]

 

i'd rather buy an M6. should be around the same price as r3enting an M10. and you could still sell it afterwards or trade it in for the M10 (but why would you want to do so?)

 

I read that and had to do a double take.  I didn't think it added up so I did some quick checking.  Cheapest I can find an M6 is ~$1500 while I see I can rent an M10 for a week for $400 at lensrentals.com, which is around 5.5% of the asking price of a new M10.  

 

Seems to me the best way to determine if you really want to spend the $ on the M10 and you're really on the fence is to just rent the M10.  Yes, you're out $400 but at least you're using the real thing to make your decision.

[arno_nyhm]

I read that and had to do a double take.  I didn't think it added up so I did some quick checking.  Cheapest I can find an M6 is ~$1500 while I see I can rent an M10 for a week for $400 at lensrentals.com, which is around 5.5% of the asking price of a new M10.  

 

Seems to me the best way to determine if you really want to spend the $ on the M10 and you're really on the fence is to just rent the M10.  Yes, you're out $400 but at least you're using the real thing to make your decision.

 

M6 usually start at 600 to 800 around here.

 

but testing the real thing of course is the better idea. thats true.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[matthieuv]

I got the xt3 and recently bought the m10p with the 35 f2. I’m going to make it easy: Leica is better. 

notes

I use Lightroom and know that it doesn’t proces the Fuji-raw to it’s full potential sometimes.

i’m the type that takes my camera as much as possible with me and take pictures of family and I do street photography. I work alot and have a family with kids so I never have much time left for hours of photography.

If you use > 85mm a lot, Fuji’s focusing with EVF (small f) will be quicker. 

But the Leica is just so nice to use, and looks so good. I like the story of the company, I like the idea that I bought a Leica, however that is prob marketing doing it’s job.

I might end up selling the fuji.