Leica M10 for extra $2000 or go for M240?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I haven't still seen a single picture taken with the M10 that shows me all those improvements or makes me regret not buying it. It's a matter of how any of us intend photography. It took me several years (maybe eight) to switch from the M8 to the M240. In that case the improvements were great. But switching from the M240 to the M10 is quite useless IMHO. I consider the Leica a fabulous camera, not a silly phone i must change any couple years. I like to use it and get used to it. Maybe in the future, when the M14  or 15 will be out, and only if the improvements will be really surprising, i will buy one. 

 

95% isn't about the images. Most of it is usability. It's easier to focus longer and faster lenses. The camera is far more responsive so you're not waiting for the buffer to play back an image. The ISO dial allows you to see the ISO with the camera turned off. The couple of mm shaved off the body means for my hands I seem to put less fingerprint marks on the RF window. A better EVF with integrated GPS rather than the larger MF grip. Higher EVF resolution. You can move the focus assist position in live view.

 

I had no plans to change either. I was offered a camera on release day and said no. But after trying one the improvements in usability were obvious and useful, for me.

 

And it has a better sensor.

 

Gordon

[epand56]

95% isn't about the images.

 

That's the point. To me a camera is 95% image. I tried the M10 and it was almost like using an M240 after a small diet.

Not enough to justify several thousand dollars for the switch. I've got a great lens instead.

[Tailwagger]

I haven't still seen a single picture taken with the M10 that shows me all those improvements... 

 

If you shoot them side by side, as I do, you will. There is no disputing the added DR of the M10, better handling of highlights, as well as significantly lower noise at higher iso.  My appraisal parallels Gordon's.  This doesn't diminish the value the 240 and in less extreme situations, as I've remarked elsewhere, beyond the 240's issues with reds, there's little between them. But as light diminishes or the scene's dynamic range increases, the M10 provides visibly superior results. For many like yourself the performance delta might not be worth the upgrade cost, but don't be fooled into thinking that the M10 isn't more flexible in its ability to handle situations that the M240 can struggle with.

[lct]

I have no experience with the M10 but as i understand it, the question is to know whether its incremental improvements over the M240 together with smaller batteries and lack of video can justify the extra expense. I guess so for people shooting a lot at 6400 iso but 12800 iso is too noisy for the M10 yet so its DR superiority over the M240 is limited anyway. The M10 would need a clean 12800 iso, a fast EVF and a silent shutter to attract my wallet but it would be called M11 or M12 then i reckon.

[colonel]

Good Morning Everyone,

 

I rented the M240 for a week and fell in love. I have the opportunity to purchase a new M240 for $2000 Canadian cheaper than a M10. I prob shoot at ISO 3200 around 15 percent of the time and the rest mostly around 1000. I can purchase a Zeiss 50 Sonnar or Leica Summarit with the savings. I however do want the M10 as well. Any thoughts on which path to take? Thank you very much everyone!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Too late now but:

 

M240               M10

                        3mm thinner

Same approx. weight

3200                6400 (and 1 stop better light sensitivity)

Larger battery

Video

ISO button       ISO wheel

                        10% higher res LCD

0.68 VF            0.73 VF

                         better dynamic range

                         optional EVF higher resolution

                         wifi

 

My guidance is 20% or more difference get the M240, 10% or less get the M10, in the middle you decide

[Peter H]

Too late now but:

 

M240               M10

                        3mm thinner

Same approx. weight

3200                6400 (and 1 stop better light sensitivity)

Larger battery

Video

ISO button       ISO wheel

                        10% higher res LCD

0.68 VF            0.73 VF

                         better dynamic range

                         optional EVF higher resolution

                         wifi

 

My guidance is 20% or more difference get the M240, 10% or less get the M10, in the middle you decide

 

 

I also prefer the M10 viewfinder. It's a small improvement over the M240, but one of many.

 

I had the M240 alongside the M10 for a number of weeks so I could test out the differences for myself in real photographic situations of the sort I find myself in.

 

 I prefer the M10 in lots of small ways that add up to the kind of big difference that makes me prefer an M camera to an SL or a DSLR, even though I'm sure I could take more or less the same photos with any of them most off the time. 

[sblutter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After studying a lot sample captures, the differences in IQ for me are not enough to get me to part with the beloved 240.  Upgrading from M9 was an easier decision for my style of shooting (M9 still a great camera btw).   Well exposed 3200 ISO shots just need a bit of PP, not a big deal - and especially so in B&W.

 

In the meantime seriously upgraded sensors have hit the market in droves.  I'll be disappointed if the eventual M11 doesn't have one.  If not, I'll keep waiting while enjoying making large (up to 40x60") prints from the 240 with no artifacts whatsoever.

 

As for the Apo 50... is it worth +25% in weight and still be f:2.0?  Hope so.  To me, a used ver. 3 or 4 are as good as 50's get, including Lux's - and $6000 less than the Apo

 

We all value things differently.  I'm guided by need, not want.  Am currently doing a street series.  Turns out shooting with a silent mobile (Schneider lens) gives me much greater invisibility, % yield of keepers much higher than a RF or pocket camera with flip up screen by far. 

 

And - am having fun & printing a lot!

[TheCanadian1]

Despite me choosing the M240 in my past comment I've ended up with the M10 and love it. I thought both cameras are great but happened to jump on an opportunity that led me to the M10. Thanks for everyone's comments. Happy Shooting!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Reciprocity]

That's the point. To me a camera is 95% image. I tried the M10 and it was almost like using an M240 after a small diet.

Not enough to justify several thousand dollars for the switch. I've got a great lens instead.

It's too subjective to call out as an absolute though, right?

 

Sometimes with my M240 at 3200 I would run into banding issues where as the M10 even at ISO 12800 is just not doing that. I shoot at ISO 10,000 without a care in the world, it's that good. I also see more even color gamut out of the M10 on the whole, color saturation is more of an even playing field despite not having issues with the way the M240 renders color.

 

For me, the reason I use a camera like the M240 or now the M10 is discreet and low light clients needs and since this is paid work, money is not really an issue, I have to spend it to earn it. The other big thing for me with the M10 is the reduced thickness of the body really pays off in reducing hand fatigue when I am using it all day. The 240 gave me hand cramps at times, it is just too thick for me and if the image quality were not as good as it is with the 240, I would have never bought it in the first place due to this reason alone.

 

Leica is already too expensive to make sense for a lot of people as it is, so it really does come down to precise personal preference. I think the M240 is a fantastic camera and with used prices what they are now, the best value going in Leica M.

 

But for me, the M10 is exactly the digital M I have always wanted from Leica and I could not be happier I upgraded from my M240.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Reciprocity