M10 or M-D the hard choice!

[Ashkanani1985]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M-D is the statement. And dare I say, not so practical one. Turn autoreview off, get half case with screen cover on M10 and it is going to be same in size and same way to operate as M-D.

But if I would be in same situation, most likely ... I'll get M-D. Because I'm meterless film M shooter. So, if M-D is taken, it has to be taken as meterless M. You meter, not the camera. And surprisingly, it works better in terms of exposure to me Main reason for the screen on M-E to me is to check if it did screw the exposure if I let M-E doing it. Well, not just M-E. This is the reason why exposure meters are still made and sold these days...

 

this is the way my brain are going now, buying M for the classic M feeling, if I am going to be reasonable I would buy M10 but if reason is what this purchase about than I should be more reasonable and get A7R III ....... but again why we buy M ? for me I buy M for its purist experience of photography and I can not find a digital camera more pure in photography than M-D 

[a.noctilux]

In my circle, I know only two "reasonable people" who buy/use Leica M (my wife and me ).

In general, reasonable people DON'T buy Leica M (that's I was told ...).

[Jeff S]

Another way to experience something different, without going to film, is to get one of the Monochroms. Of course, that's b/w only, but a refreshing change of pace in the digital realm.

 

I have an M10 (much better experience than from my traded M240), and picked up a mint original M Monochrom, with new sensor, for less than half the cost of a new M246.

 

Jeff

[almoore]

for me I buy M for its purist experience of photography and I can not find a digital camera more pure in photography than M-D 

 

Pure, within the context of the M-D, is just marketing guff for a functionally crippled camera. It's absurd to remove something as useful as histogram review from a digital camera.

 

The M-D is a parody of a film M. And the joke comes at the expense of the buyer. 

[Ashkanani1985]

Pure, within the context of the M-D, is just marketing guff for a functionally crippled camera. It's absurd to remove something as useful as histogram review from a digital camera.

 

The M-D is a parody of a film M. And the joke comes at the expense of the buyer. 

 

 

I must disagree with you, Looking at 240 that I have only finding the mic holes on the body of the camera (top plat) makes me feel as its mournful M, yet looking at M10 gives me the feeling of M classic camera only fix an EVF and thats feeling is gone.....

 

in the end its a matter of opinion 

[Ashkanani1985]

Another way to experience something different, without going to film, is to get one of the Monochroms. Of course, that's b/w only, but a refreshing change of pace in the digital realm.

 

I have an M10 (much better experience than from my traded M240), and picked up a mint original M Monochrom, with new sensor, for less than half the cost of a new M246.

 

Jeff

 

Well Mono is next in my list, and how much I wish Leica introduce a M-D Mono version 

Edited November 14, 2017 by Ashkanani1985

[almoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I must disagree with you, Looking at 240 that I have only finding the mic holes on the body of the camera (top plat) makes me feel as its mournful M, yet looking at M10 gives me the feeling of M classic camera only fix an EVF and thats feeling is gone.....

 

in the end its a matter of opinion 

 

I think the view that an exposure histogram is a very useful thing goes beyond opinion. 

 

If you want an M-D you want an M-D, but there's nothing classic about a crippled digital M mimicking the look of a film M while having none of the feel. An M10 is much closer to the original spirit of the M. 

Edited November 14, 2017 by almoore

[Guest]

When I bought my mono1, I also took a look at the m-d 

 

the main difference between the mono and the m-d:

the omission of the color filter causes a better  image quality compared to  its standard model.

 

So besides the emotional aspect, there is also a rational/real advantage.

 

 the m-d is just beautiful,that´s all....more or less

 

but I have to admit ,

if I had to choose between m10 and m-d

...I would go for the m-d. 

 

lambda.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Guest

[Ashkanani1985]

I think the view that an exposure histogram is a very useful thing goes beyond opinion. 

 

If you want an M-D you want an M-D, but there's nothing classic about a crippled digital M mimicking the look of a film M while having none of the feel. An M10 is much closer to the original spirit of the M. 

 

 

Well I don't know what is film feel if taking away histogram, screen, checking your photo on the spot and waiting to go back home to see what you capture, all this not film feel than plz tell me what is film feel?! is it developing the film whats make the film experience?

 

now if the view of exposure histogram is not an opinion than I guess nobody should be using a film camera?! and if not having such an option makes a camera crippled than I guess all film cameras are cripples?! and thats makes Monochrome M color blind and M-D crippled ?!

 

you are free to chose what suite your photography need in 2017 but there is nothing called the perfect camera for everyone and opinion of photographer is always there to chose what suit him/her ......

Edited November 14, 2017 by Ashkanani1985

[Exodies]

You don’t seem to understand what “then” means (I’m not referring to your typo).

People’s feelings for film is not solely based on not having a histogram or not looking at the LCD and it’s a pathetically poor substitute for film results and development craft to simply remove the screen and have digital pictures.

[wattsy]

Well I don't know what is film feel if taking away histogram, screen, checking your photo on the spot and waiting to go back home to see what you capture, all this not film feel than plz tell me what is film feel?! is it developing the film whats make the film experience?

 

 

I think what Andrew is saying is that an M film camera and the M10 both represent the stripped down functional essence of their respective photographic medium. Histograms and preview screens have no relevance to a film camera so the absence of those features on a film camera is normal. The M film camera, with its clear viewfinder and simple and direct control of exposure and focus, is the embodiment of a film camera that has everything you need and nothing that you don't. Similarly, the M10, with it's refined third generation electronic and digital innards and ergonomic form factor, is a digital camera that has everything you need and nothing that you don't. The removal of the screen from the M-D and M60 is a contrived step to make a digital camera physically look (and arguably feel) like a film camera; it isn't really an exercise in refining the digital camera to its essentials because, in removing the screen, you are reducing the utility of the camera.

 

When I owned a Leica digital camera (M8 and M9 generation) I quite liked the idea of losing the screen but that was with the hope of reducing the thickness of the camera, to make it ergonomically closer to the film cameras I had become accustomed to. I was willing to lose the functionality of the screen in exchange for a thinner camera. However, now that the M10 is the same thickness as the M6/7 (and the screen feels a flatter, more integral part of the camera's back than the sticking out rectangle on the back of the M9), the M10 now feels and handles like a "traditional" M camera. That and the removal of video, etc. means the M10 represents the functional essence of a digital stills camera for the M system. The M-D (and M60), by contrast, involve a design fudge which has resulted in cameras that are both artificially hobbled and thicker than the M film cameras that they imitate.

Edited November 14, 2017 by wattsy

[jaapv]

So people are happy with the thickness of the M10. And then they go on to add a half-case, adding 10 mm, or even one with an integrated grip, 15 mm....   Go figure.

[almoore]

Well I don't know what is film feel if taking away histogram, screen, checking your photo on the spot and waiting to go back home to see what you capture, all this not film feel than plz tell me what is film feel?! is it developing the film whats make the film experience?

 

now if the view of exposure histogram is not an opinion than I guess nobody should be using a film camera?! and if not having such an option makes a camera crippled than I guess all film cameras are cripples?!

I was using the term feel within the context of digital Ms (prior to the 10) looking but not feeling like film Ms in our hands. In terms of a recording medium, film is radically different to digital, something that has nothing to do with the form factor of cameras. However, if the attraction of the M-D is related to its similarity in look to a film camera, Leica missed a trick in not giving it a fake wind on lever and rewind crank.

 

Edit: Ian has already said it a lot better than me.

Edited November 14, 2017 by almoore

[wattsy]

So people are happy with the thickness of the M10. And then they go on to add a half-case, adding 10 mm, or even one with an integrated grip, 15 mm....   Go figure.

 

 

Yes, but I don't suppose many add a half case for handling reasons. Besides, those who have added a half case to an M10 probably did the same with the M9 or M240 that they previously owned (making an already thick camera even thicker). ... Go figure.

[almoore]

So people are happy with the thickness of the M10. And then they go on to add a half-case, adding 10 mm, or even one with an integrated grip, 15 mm....   Go figure.

I know a lot of people with Leicas and not one of them uses cases.

[Ashkanani1985]

Well I dont think this topic is all about which is a beter camera M10 or M-D neither it was my intention to do so when I started this topic....

Its no brainer that M10 is the best Digital M Leica has to offer but if someone looking for the best digital than choices are many starting from Leica SL ending to A7R III ....etc

the descion is really hard between M10 and M-D, I am in love with the idea to do everything by myself, for example shooting flash photography with M-D and using lightmeter and all the accessories that was long left after digtal era. I am aware that nothing will feel as film M but as far as I can see the Leica M-D is the closest thing to classic Leica film M and would love to discover this feeling....

Its expansive so to take the decision to stick with basics for long time to come is what making this decision hard as I want to invest my money in the future in lenses and forget about camera bodies.

 

One thing that attract me to M-D and the idea of a basic digital camera (lets put it this way much better than referring to film) its so basic to the point that you don't look for future upgrades to upgrade because there is nothing to upgrade, maybe sensor, but again i wouldn’t buy M camera with more than 24mp for alot of reason, so the idea of buying a camera to shoot with not to play with features and menus Is the whole package all about.

[a.noctilux]

One word as (also) Monochrom CCD user.

Monochrom original files are the best b&w "files" I've seen, and far "better" (which I can "work on if necessary", but as is in 90% no need to PP ) than converted b&w from M10/M-D.

 

The weird thing is I "scan" my b&w negatives with Monochrom .

Just to say that there is no discrepency film/digital (for me, remember only for pleasure).

 

As far as Monochrom goes, there is no WB.

The same "scan" from M-D (always "Auto WB" no way to change that) may have some "color".

 

This is a way to say that "sometime M-D WB is a thing to concern" with difficult artificial lighting.

Same thing with AWB with M10.

Edited November 14, 2017 by a.noctilux

[Peter H]

Well I dont think this topic is all about which is a beter camera M10 or M-D neither it was my intention to do so when I started this topic....

Its no brainer that M10 is the best Digital M Leica has to offer but if someone looking for the best digital than choices are many starting from Leica SL ending to A7R III ....etc

the descion is really hard between M10 and M-D, I am in love with the idea to do everything by myself, for example shooting flash photography with M-D and using lightmeter and all the accessories that was long left after digtal era. I am aware that nothing will feel as film M but as far as I can see the Leica M-D is the closest thing to classic Leica film M and would love to discover this feeling....

Its expansive so to take the decision to stick with basics for long time to come is what making this decision hard as I want to invest my money in the future in lenses and forget about camera bodies.

 

One thing that attract me to M-D and the idea of a basic digital camera (lets put it this way much better than referring to film) its so basic to the point that you don't look for future upgrades to upgrade because there is nothing to upgrade, maybe sensor, but again i wouldn’t buy M camera with more than 24mp for alot of reason, so the idea of buying a camera to shoot with not to play with features and menus Is the whole package all about.

 

 

Isn't it all a bit of a muddle though?

 

If you enjoy all the old paraphernalia and practices of film photography, why not go the whole hog and use film?

 

It's your choice of course but it sounds as though you are combining the worst of both worlds and sacrificing the best.

[NigelG]

As a user of an M-D and an M240-P I can't help thinking that a lot of comments re the M-D are not from those who've actually taken the camera out of the shop and shot with it....

 

I often take out both but sometimes one or the other depending on what I'm shooting/feeling and for me the fundamental difference with the M-D is not whether it's trying to somehow deny its digital-ness as a film camera manque or is a somehow "hobbled" digital camera as it has no screen and thus no histogram (the horror the horror!) it's that it is simply (in every sense of the word) A Camera. Nothing more.

 

I take a picture "click" and move on, and another "click" "click" "click". I can't check the histogram or 'blinkies' or framing or use the level or wonder whether lens detection is on, or what "film mode (Ha!)" I'm in or which "user profile" is set etc etc or even subconsciously worry about these things. I just take pictures. I'm just looking with my camera (not AT it).

 

The M240 with the screen turned off is NOT the same - it's somehow seems wilfully perverse not to use some of it's features - but it's hard to explain the difference......

Edited November 14, 2017 by NigelG

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter H]

As a user of an M-D and an M240-P I can't help thinking that a lot of comments re the M-D are not from those who've actually taken the camera out of the shop and shot with it....

 

I often take out both but sometimes one or the other depending on what I'm shooting/feeling and for me the fundamental difference with the M-D is not whether it's trying to somehow deny its digital-ness as a film camera marque or is a somehow "hobbled" digital camera as it has no screen and thus no histogram (the horror the horror!) it's that it is simply (in every sense of the word) A Camera. Nothing more.

 

I take a picture "click" and move on, and another "click" "click" "click". I can't check the histogram or 'blinkies' or framing or use the level or wonder whether lens detection is on, or what "film mode (Ha!)" I'm in or which "user profile" is set etc etc even subconsciously worry about these things. I just take pictures. I'm just looking with my camera (not AT it).

 

The M240 with the screen turned off is NOT the same - it's somehow seems wilfully perverse not to use some of it's features - but it's hard to explain the difference......

 

 

 

Sounds like your camera's in control of you rather than vice versa.