Should I have just ordered the M10?

[Eoin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I sit here reading this thread, I am left wondering why on earth would someone who by their own admission has little understanding of ISO, aperture and shutter speed (the basics of photography) and describes the 42MP RX1R II  as prone to camera shake at low shutter speeds, feels a Leica M10 is the answer because of the captivating images on this forum. 

 

Your coin, 4000+ for the Q 7000 for the M10 and another 5000 to 7000 for a few M lenses .... really!, this has to be a joke!.

 

Learn the basics of photography and perhaps you'll discover 15,000 in $, € or £ worth of equipment by its self will never produce captivating images.

 

I suspect a serious error in judgement is being made here .... either by myself or the OP.

[Advertisement]

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

[jdlaing]

Here we go again with the money angle.

[Eoin]

All right skip the money ... it's not the camera that makes the image it's the photographer. 

[Dr. G]

As I sit here reading this thread, I am left wondering why on earth would someone who by their own admission has little understanding of ISO, aperture and shutter speed (the basics of photography) and describes the 42MP RX1R II  as prone to camera shake at low shutter speeds, feels a Leica M10 is the answer because of the captivating images on this forum. 

 

Your coin, 4000+ for the Q 7000 for the M10 and another 5000 to 7000 for a few M lenses .... really!, this has to be a joke!.

 

Learn the basics of photography and perhaps you'll discover 15,000 in $, € or £ worth of equipment by its self will never produce captivating images.

 

I suspect a serious error in judgement is being made here .... either by myself or the OP.

 

 

I was overeaggerating when I stated I didn't know the basics. I understand the theories, but like many amateur photographers I've also lived with the crutches of auto focus and shooting modes that many modern cameras have.  When I was younger I could manually adjust a camera without issue.  Hopefully it will all come back like riding a bicycle.  FWIW, all of the images that I took that I linked to were shot in full manual mode - so I obviously have some knowledge.  

 

I happen to agree that If I can't get the images, that's on me, not the equipment.  That being said, I'm not the first person who has abandoned a RX1R ii for the reasons I mentioned.  

 

Come to my house and play my Bosendorfer or one of my saxophones.  They're great instruments, but they won't sound beautiful if played by someone inexperienced.  Learn the instruments and you'll sound incredible because I know what they are capable of.  If I give you the saxophone or piano I learned on as a child you can sound ok once you learn the instruments, but you'll never sound beautiful.  I also know what the M10 is capable of - so it's as simple as becoming adept with the instrument.  Luckily, I do know composition and the theories behind it.  

 

I apologize if I made it seem like I was completely ignorant about what ISO, aperture and shutter speed were ... and for ending some of my sentences with prepositions

[robert blu]

Back to your lenses choices I suggest a 50mm, the one you prefer + the Leica M macro adapter for you dishes photos...

robert

[jonoslack]

Buy a M9 and the 35 & 50.  If you get used lenses, there isn't even any $ on the line.  If you like the M experience, then a M10 is an easy upgrade, and I doubt you'd lose anything on the M9 even.

 

The Q is totally a gateway drug.  :-)

 

I'm not convinced by this argument - the technological advantages of the M10 are so very obvious (buffer / shutter lag / processing time etc.). I understand the argument about the M9 colour . . but I think it is an acquired taste (one which many of us have acquired of course).

 

I think you'd love an M10, and as you have a 28 with your Q, then I think I'd recommend getting either a 35 or 50 and a 75 - preferably the lovely 75 summicron, it focuses relatively closely and has great bokeh . . as for the 35 or 50, I guess I'd have the 35 summicron or the 50 summilux. 

 

Good Luck with your decision making!

[Keith_W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't be discouraged. The M10 can be quite easy to learn if you set ISO to auto, and shutter speed to auto. Then you only have to worry about aperture (also easy, leave it wide open most of the time) and focusing. Once you have learnt how to focus a rangefinder, which should take you a few hours, you can take your ISO off auto. Then move the shutter dial away from A and ... welcome to fully manual mode. 

[albertknappmd]

You will not regret the M10... A major improvement in both size and  more importantly in PERFORMANCE.

Can now use ISO 1600 with now worries!

[albertknappmd]

The M10 and 50mm APO-ASPH in action...

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!

[Eoin]

I was overeaggerating ..... <snip> ..... so I obviously have some knowledge.  

 

I do apologise, I took it on face value.

 

Having been taught photography by my Dad over 4 decades ago with a totally manual camera and a hand held light meter, yes those basics has stayed with me all my life regardless of modern exposure systems.

 

I guess what surprises me more is how you seem to flip/flop between RX1, Q and now M10 without doing some relative practical hands on familiarisation at a store. I guess in your part of the world it is the norm to mail order and return within a given timeframe. We don't have that here in my country.

 

My advice for what it's worth is very simple, most high end modern cameras are capable of stunning results in the right hands.

If you're not getting the results from such a system, you have yet to understand it, let alone master it. Changing won't provide any quick fix,  honing and polishing your Camera technique and post processing skills will yield the biggest improvement.

 

The rangefinder experience is ... shall we say an acquired taste and not to everyones liking. 

If it were me,  the Q with its fixed 28mm lens is confusing the argument. If rangefinder photography is the way you want to go, I would suggest a 21, 35 & 75 3 lens setup and absolutely the M10 over any other Leica M digital camera. The progression and refinement in the M10 makes it worth the entry price.

 

For a small compact, I'd be choosing something a little more versatile with a built in zoom rather than a fixed focal high end camera.

 

Good luck on what ever you decide.  

[Dr. G]

I do apologise, I took it on face value.

 

Having been taught photography by my Dad over 4 decades ago with a totally manual camera and a hand held light meter, yes those basics has stayed with me all my life regardless of modern exposure systems.

 

I guess what surprises me more is how you seem to flip/flop between RX1, Q and now M10 without doing some relative practical hands on familiarisation at a store. I guess in your part of the world it is the norm to mail order and return within a given timeframe. We don't have that here in my country.

 

My advice for what it's worth is very simple, most high end modern cameras are capable of stunning results in the right hands.

If you're not getting the results from such a system, you have yet to understand it, let alone master it. Changing won't provide any quick fix,  honing and polishing your Camera technique and post processing skills will yield the biggest improvement.

 

The rangefinder experience is ... shall we say an acquired taste and not to everyones liking. 

If it were me,  the Q with its fixed 28mm lens is confusing the argument. If rangefinder photography is the way you want to go, I would suggest a 21, 35 & 75 3 lens setup and absolutely the M10 over any other Leica M digital camera. The progression and refinement in the M10 makes it worth the entry price.

 

For a small compact, I'd be choosing something a little more versatile with a built in zoom rather than a fixed focal high end camera.

 

Good luck on what ever you decide.  

 

Thanks for the response.

 

I have been thinking about a small automatic compact with a zoom instead of the Q as it probably does make more sense.  I'm currently looking into what choices I have that would provide the best image quality, most versatility and great low light performance - I would assume I would need to look at a larger sensor camera.  I could use the funds saved towards another focal length lens for the M10.

[jlindstrom]

Sony rx100 series cameras are great little cameras with a moderate zoom. Compared to Q, they’d save you a focal lengths worth for the M10.

 

The rx100 series cameras are pocketable and have great IQ for such small zoom cameras.

 

I had the Q for two years and liked it a lot. Then replaced my previous M with the M10 and found the Q left on the shelf. Ended up trading it for a 28 summicron.

[M11 for me]

Sony rx100 series cameras are great little cameras with a moderate zoom. Compared to Q, they’d save you a focal lengths worth for the M10.

The rx100 series cameras are pocketable and have great IQ for such small zoom cameras.

I had the Q for two years and liked it a lot. Then replaced my previous M with the M10 and found the Q left on the shelf. Ended up trading it for a 28 summicron.

A friend of mine often uses that camera. Its no weight. In good lighting conditions very satisfying.

 

But no fun no soul no character. The M10 is more my thing and still very carry-able. Normally I have just one lens with me. I think beforehand what I will expect. And I learned that whatever I have is wrong and right at the same time. Anyway I have no problem to be around with just the 28mm. The next day I might take just the 50mm and so on. I do not think that an M is a camera where we should permanently change lenses.

[jaapv]

Why not? Surely the changing of lenses depends on the type of photography we do and the choice of primes, not on the brand of the camera?

[almoore]

I'm not the first person who has abandoned a RX1R ii for the reasons I mentioned.

You might not be the first person to abandon the Sony due to a lack of sharpness at slow speeds, but your experience isn't universal.

 

I use the RX1Rii a lot and find that its combination of a really soft leaf shutter and very good high ISO performance make it better than an M for hand held low light work. For an improvement at slower shutter speeds you really should be looking at something with stabilisation.

[Tailwagger]

I was overeaggerating when I stated I didn't know the basics....

 

A lot of folks, myself included, after many years of AF and digital, come to Leica fearing that acquiring an M is a high risk gamble. Over the years, we've run into images that we admire, we sense there is a certain special something afoot and we wonder if somehow we too might participate.  But then we shudder... the removal of all auto modes and other crutches we've grown accustom to creates an unhealthy dose of self-doubt. It forces the aspiring owner to confront the risk of serious damage not only to the resulting images, but to self esteem as well.  Adding insult to injury, discovering whether or not you have the right stuff requires spending quite a chunk of money.  And when it all ends in failure,  you'll be forced to slink away defeated, certain you're a hack.  Every decent image you ever produced previously is now exposed as a fraud perpetrated by all those missing bells and whistles. 

 

Don't worry about this sort of nonsense as nothing could be further from the truth.

 

If you have a basic understanding of photography and decent eyesight coupled a bit of willingness to spend a week or so working on how to reliably focus, there are few cameras simpler to learn, understand and get results from than an M.  Yeah, you'll probably leave your lens cap on once or twice, under or overexpose or blow a few highlights until you get a feel for the center weighting, but other than that there's no more, 'crap I thought I was in mode X when I actually was in Y... dammit!' kind of moments that are so commonplace when using devices that are more computer than camera. The thing about a simple camera is that its... well... simple. There ain't a whole lot to understand, though that doesn't mean that there isn't a helluva lot to be mastered. But the M is approachable in a way that when used with intelligence, dedication and sensitivity you are free to progress as far as you are capable of going.  Even if in the end, you find that some of the inherent limitations of RF photography aren't your personal cup of tea, there's every chance that you'll wind up understanding so much more about the art of making a good image that it will translate to whatever other equipment you ultimately wind up with. If you're serious, go for it.  

[Kwesi]

A little background. I was trying out the Q vs the Sony RX1R ii a few weeks ago. I had ordered the Q and then had a change of heart and ordered the Sony instead. I had been shooting with it in low light recently and found some issues with the camera's responsiveness. In manual mode, the focus mechanism isn't very direct and in auto mode it doesn't always lock. Even when good focus is achieved in manual mode, the 42MP sensor seems prone to camera shake at slower shutter speeds.

 

I chose to return it today with an exchange for the Q, which Infound to be a great performer in manual focus mode, with auto it locked on nicely even in low light.

 

I keep thinking of the M10, though. Granted, it is significantly more money, but that's not the dilemma in making a decision. I've never shot a rangefinder before. Plus, I'm not very experienced in choosing aperture, ISO and shutter speed. Of course using the M would force me to change those things. I'm just on the fence about jumping into the deep end. From a financial position, I'm sure it wouldn't be a total loss if I chose to go back to the Q. It's just that I am captivated by the images people are getting with the M10.

 

Any thoughts? FWIW, these are some images I took with the RX1R ii at a recent automotive event. I like to take more impressionist types of photos. I apologize, as I can't embed on the forum from my iPad.

 

https://flic.kr/p/XXBJnj

https://flic.kr/p/YY8g8y

https://flic.kr/p/YZA28A

https://flic.kr/p/XXCDTN

https://flic.kr/p/YZARcG

https://flic.kr/p/BWinEJ

https://flic.kr/p/YY9uvJ

 

Based solely on the images you posted, you are better of with a Q. Why?

You seem to enjoy precise focussing and working closeup. Both are not things that a digital M's excel at.

You can Take a Q out of auto everything mode and shoot completely manual whenever it suits you.

The only thing you don't get with a Q is the particular pride of ownership you get with an actual digital M.

My suggestion is add an M10 and a 50 to your Q and enjoy the best of both worlds

[jaapv]

Based solely on the images you posted, you are better of with a Q. Why?

You seem to enjoy precise focussing and working closeup. Both are not things that a digital M's excel at.

You can Take a Q out of auto everything mode and shoot completely manual whenever it suits you.

The only thing you don't get with a Q is the particular pride of ownership you get with an actual digital M.

My suggestion is add an M10 and a 50 to your Q and enjoy the best of both worlds

May I rephrase that?  Precise focussing is something that some photographers do not excel at.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Kwesi]

May I rephrase that?  Precise focussing is something that some photographers do not excel at.

Thanks for pointing out my error Jaap, I meant to type "precise composing"

[pgh]

Perhaps I can offer some perspective, seeing as the 3 main tools I use are an A7RII, RX1RII, and a Leica M 10.

I abandoned my Nikons for the Sonys, no regrets there 2 years later. No complaints from my clients either. 

 

I should note, I am not nostalgic about cameras or the image making process. I find nothing romantic in needlessy fiddling with old technology to get an inferior image. I understand the appeal, but I am an image maker - and the image is what I care about. The means with which they are obtained, I am malleable, adaptable and practical, and if a new tool is going to reduce friction in the image making process I am all for it, especially if it is going to allow me to make images I wouldn't have been able to make before. For instance, I like to shoot at night - but I don't care about long exposure effects. I can walk around and get good images, handheld, with the Sony cameras. ISO 6400, a fast lens, IBIS all make these things possible. 

 

From almost every practical standpoint, it is easier to get a technically superior images from the Sony cameras. If you are having trouble getting a sharp image from an Rx1RII, I would guess it would be more difficult with the Leica. The only thing the M10 has going for it here is it's noticeably diminished resolution (some argue the difference is minimal - I make prints alot and I argue that it is significant - it's not huge, but it is noticeable), which requires less stability to get a sharp image at an equivalent focal length. But that mitigated by the quiet leaf shutter in the Rx1RII, and in the A7RII the IBIS allows me to handhold images to a greater extent. Usually, I can get sharp images from my Sonys at a full stop or even 1.5 stops slower than equivalent FL on my M10. There are a few instance where the manual focus of the Leica might help you get a low light image more easily, but again - in most circumstances I have found the autofocus on the sonys to allow me to more easily get a sharp image in low light than I would with the M10. If you're using these new cameras and not taking advantage of the AF mechanisms, and learning how to use them properly, it's just intentionally handicapping your process. 

 

Aside from that, the Sony cameras both have superior image quality when it comes to dynamic range and resolution. I use the M10 because I enjoy the lens rendering of Leica and because I find practical benefit in the rangefinder mechanism in some shooting situations. It's my preferred camera to hold (but not by a ton) and I also like the color output - or rather - it requires less work for me to get the file to where I like it. The Sony is more work, but is a more robust file as well. Some people say the Sony is soulless - these are computers in your hand - there is no soul in any of this stuff - and there are plenty of photographers who shoot very soulful images with the Sonys. If you get used to them, they are more enjoyable to use than digital slr's ever were - from my point of view. They're not perfect but they do their job very, very well. We're spoiled because they really broke ground with the A7RII and personally I forget just how much that camera freed me in a lot of ways. 

 

The M10 is great, but not the most practical, in my point of view, and I have used all of these cameras for just about any type of situation you would use them for at this point, the A7RII is the most practical, and if you're okay with a fixed 35mm lens, the Rx1RII is possibly the best imaging tool on the market, especially at the price. The images it produces are reasonably close to the x1d files, it has 1/2000 shutter sync, the files are just ridiculous for the size that camera is. I really enjoy my Leica, but even price being equal even I would keep my Sony cameras because I can simply do more with them when push comes to shove. I love shooting with my M10, but it's not really a solution to any photographic problem these days - it's more of a luxury item or another option to shake up your approach.