M10 or M-D the hard choice!

[NigelG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

?

[Advertisement]

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

[Peter H]

?

 

 

If a camera with the screen turned off still results in your worrying about all those things you list, and feeling that it's perverse not to use the features you don't want to use, and it prevents you from just "clicking" and moving on to the next "click" "click" "cilick", and you need to buy another (very expensive) camera to avoid the problem, then it feels to me as though the camera is exerting undue influence over you.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Peter H

[a.noctilux]

I don't know how other people are influenced by their camera (or system camera).

 

I'm very much influenced by the camera in my hand.

As multi-system user, I don't "take" (or feel the pictures I want) the same "photographic mind" if I use an Hasselblad Xpan or an M.

Same thing, I don't have same state of "mind" when I use film M or digital M.

 

More influenced also by the lens arttached to the camera.

[NigelG]

If a camera with the screen turned off still results in your worrying about all those things you list, and feeling that it's perverse not to use the features you don't want to use, and it prevents you from just "clicking" and moving on to the next "click" "click" "cilick", and you need to buy another (very expensive) camera to avoid the problem, then it feels to me as though the camera is exerting undue influence over you.

 

Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that it was perverse not to use features I don't want to use.....there's plenty on the M240 I have never and probably will never use.

I think it's more that more 'features' equals more choices that have to be made (including not using them)....and those choices usually often get revisited even if simply to confirm you made the right ones.

As I said it's difficult to explain....

[Herr Barnack]

JMHO but the M10 offers upgrades that I would want to have. 

 

While some like the idea of a digital M camera with no rear screen, I have never been of that mind.  Nonstop chimping is a plague to be avoided, but it is nice to be able to instantly check and fine tune composition or exposure.  Sometimes I will shoot in aperture priority, check the exposure and follow up with a shot in manual mode that is -1/2 or -3/4 EV compared to what aperture priority gave me. 

[Ashkanani1985]

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

 

Peter plz dont make these kind of judgements that insult me as photographer since you dont know me or know my achivments in photography, you can check my instgrame Camerapedia@instgarm and see how many photos that I’ve won awards with and you can check my natgeo profile and see how many photos of mine get puplished here http://m.yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/875806/#/photos/

 

And I’ve been nominated final on Travel photographer of the year in 2016, and I can keep going on how many photos that I’ve captured and puplished in many world wide photography magazines.....

 

I am sorry that I have to give you all this but apparently I shouldn’t have left it for your judgment to give such an insulting comment.

 

I am just looking for a big change in my photography style by using different equipment and all for the benefit of photography.

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think Peter was responding to NigelG. No need to feel insulted.

[Ashkanani1985]

Yeah i am sorry Peter i somehow read it as a replay to me

[NigelG]

Hey!   Should I feel insulted??  

 

Actually I think I know what Peter was getting at.... and I could have phrased things better when describing using the M-D.

 

Its a bit of a "state-of-mind / haptic-y / the camera-just-gets-out-of-the-way" kind of thing that I always roll my eyes at when other people bang on about it......it's just somehow different to using the 240 (which is not in control of me IMHO!)

[Peter H]

Hey! Should I feel insulted??

 

Actually I think I know what Peter was getting at.... and I could have phrased things better when describing using the M-D.

 

Its a bit of a "state-of-mind / haptic-y / the camera-just-gets-out-of-the-way" kind of thing that I always roll my eyes at when other people bang on about it......it's just somehow different to using the 240 (which is not in control of me IMHO!)

No, you shouldn’t feel insulted.

 

It was a light-hearted comment anyway. But with a grain of truth that I’m sure you understood even if you didn’t agree with it.

 

To an extent our equipment does exert an influence over all of us, to varying degrees no doubt. I’ve always felt that a screen on a digital camera ( that I believe you should be able to ignore just as easily as you ignore some of the shutter speeds that you rarely if ever use, or in my case the flash connections on my film Ms that I never used) is such a great benefit that if it gets in anyone’s way they should question why they are using a digital camera in the first place.

 

But you’re not the only one to talk about the liberating effects of the M-D., and I don’t question your sincerity or photographic ability. Just your self-control!

[NigelG]

Peter

 

No problem - I think it's hard to 'read' comments sometimes.....

 

I think the problem with the M-D is that it always comes down to the lack of the screen and this is then set as the defining point of the camera - and always on the basis that one can't review the taken images or histogram.

 

My point is that the real 'difference' (for me!) with the M-D is not the absence of the screen but the absence of all the settings and choices a menu-driven digital camera affords and thus the 'indecision' they create.

 

Again for me one of the real advantage of digital photography over film is NOT the fact that one can review an image immediately (!) but that one can change ISO on a shot by shot basis, and subsequently 'develop' and distribute an image electronically without a wet darkroom or third-party service. This doesn't need a screen on the camera.

 

What I'm not sure about is whether I could have an M-D as my only M, as the M240 allows for an EVF + level I prefer for WA (I only use 28+50 on the M-D) and there are obviously times when I absolutely want to make sure I haven't ballsed things up!

 

I guess part of the 'problem' with the M-D is that it perhaps has a kind-of "hair-shirted" anti-progress flavour to it which ends up with people getting a bit polarised regarding it.

[Lee Rust]

Since I have no interest in the M 240 video or live view, I puzzled for many months over the differences between the M-D and M 262. I'd been using an Epson R-D1 for several years and was accustomed to the disappearing screen and direct ISO selection, but was often frustrated by the 6 mp resolution.

 

As far as I could determine, the image qualities of these two M variants were identical and they shared the same quiet shutter. For me, the main attractions of the M-D were the old-fashioned haptics of the screenless back and the direct mechanical control of ISO. The 262 is a bit lighter and somewhat less expensive, but I was worried about the vulnerability and feel of the large LCD and the menu-fiddling associated with ISO changes.

 

As it turned out, a nicely priced 262 presented itself and I made the choice. The camera came to me already fitted with the Leica screen protector made of textured plastic film and I immediately realized that the tactility and appearance of the back is transformed by the addition of this simple accessory. The shiny, slippery & smudgy LCD disappears into the back of the camera and I never feel it or worry about it at all. Likewise, the dedicated ISO button gives direct access to the ISO menu and the thumbwheel seems just as quick and easy to work as the dial on the M-D.

 

I never use auto-review, but it is nice to sit down once in a while to review recent images on the LCD without the hassle of downloading. Likewise, I always shoot DNG, but it's handy to have the option of JPG for casual snapshots. So the M 262 works for me.

[hilm3]

I have had my M-D for a couple of months now. It is a pleasure to use. For me, it is a very enjoyable, low stress experience. No histograms, menus, or distractions to worry about. Just set ISO, aperture, I am always on auto exposure. Once I spend 3 seconds doing setting that, it is just focus and shoot. Once in a blue moon, I preset exposure by aiming at something else. But the more I use it, the more I trust the camera's choice. It is really nice to have that ISO dial in the back! And then, I get a nice raw file when I get home. I am pretty good with Lightroom and Photoshop to tweak this or that.

 

When I want more stress, I shoot an M7 (my second favorite camera now) or M6 with film of a fixed ISO (one of my sons loves the M6 - will be his come Christmas). Want an indoor picture with ISO 100 film? Too bad. Went out on a bright day and all you've got is ISO 3200? Better have an ND filter. If I want to work a little harder, I take an M3 or M2 and either guess exposure or meter by hand.

 

When I really want to up the stress level, I have a Fuji X-E1 that takes a lot longer to capture focus than the M-D. And I can chimp to my heart's content. Nice photos with that one, too.

 

Sure I could have bought an M10 or 240 or whatever and taped the crap out of it to simplify to my liking. But why bother? They are not for me.

 

Getting an M-D was a carefully thought out decision for me. And a good one. Some people prefer all the bells and whistles, and that is ok, too.

[otto.f]

I am attracted to the idea of going shooting for the sake of photography and only photography, without worrying about focus and settings..... etc

 

Given what you say here, I’d go for the M-D too. My experience with the M10, coming from an M9, is that it has many menu-options which tend to disturb me. At least I had to get used to it and row my way through the options to return to the essentials. I don’t know the M-D, but I suppose that without the screen you’ll not be disturbed by options so much. You are coming from a DSLR however, so maybe the M10 is already a lot simpler than what you’re used to.

[pgk]

I am attracted to the idea of going shooting for the sake of photography and only photography, without worrying about focus and settings..... etc

 

With all due respect you are not. The camera is simply a tool. Use it as you find most effective. If you have to worry about deciding between an M10 or M-D you are still obsessing far too much over technicalities. Cameras are the instruments we use to create images with and shouldn't get in the way of this (too many do) but going too minimalist for the sake of doing so is an over-reaction IMO. Minimalism certainly has its place for some, but if it really was the panacea to enable 'pure' photography then the M-D would sell in vast numbers. Does it?

[a.noctilux]

Pure photography is only marketing words.

 

For me this means nothing.

 

M-D can be pure photography.

As can be M10, MP, Df or Leica "0" Replica.

But user's feeling on/of the tool is something that can not be duplicated by other tools.

[enboe]

A vote for the M10 for the extended ISO sensitivity and the use-it-when-you-need-it screen.  95% of shooting can be sans chimping anyway, the other 5% it's handy to have live view and post-view the exposure for tricky lighting.  Oh, and the M10 comes in silver.  Of course if they release a silver M-D, I'll probably add one of those to the herd as well.

 

Eric

[otto.f]

But user's feeling on/of the tool is something that can not be duplicated by other tools.

Yes and there’s nothing wrong with asking people about experiences but in the end your camera has to feel good in your own hands.

 

There’s another point though that’s important here and that is rangefinder photography. OP comes from see through the lens systems (DSLR, mirrorless EVF) and that is quite a different way of looking, composing and making photographs. The journey with the M240 was short. Now the M-D is quite an expensive way of getting to know whether your portfolio is getting better or worse with RF photography comparing to your DSLR or EVF portfolio. So maybe it’s an idea to ask people about these portfolio’s besides asking camera-owners about their experiences.

Edited November 15, 2017 by otto.f

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

There’s another point though that’s important here and that is rangefinder photography.

 

Absolutely. RF photography is to some of us, the most effective way of working when an RF camera is a suitable tool for the photography being undertaken. Sine all Leica's digital MRF cameras are capable of excellent results (even the M8!) and operate in fundamentally the same way, the choice between them becomes one of mainly technical specifications. The M-D simply forces shooting without chimping. Personally, I finding reviewing helps with decision making and I wouldn't want to use a camera without the facility.

[LocalHero1953]

There are those who like tools and design and mechanical objects - these are the collectors. There are those who like the experience of photography. And there are those who just want to make photographs: translating what they see with their eyes, through their mind, into something on a screen or on paper. Most people spread across several of these categories, but with their centre of gravity in one of them. I suspect I'm in the latter category, with a little bit in the middle, and I try to keep out of the first (not always successfully - see my avatar). This discussion about MD or M10 is all about the middle category - the experience of taking a photograph. Nothing wrong with that, but I doubt many people would take better photographs as a result of choosing one body or the other*.

 

I am occasionally tempted to go back to film, not for its retro appeal, but because I recognise that film responds to light differently from digital sensors, in a way that is difficult or impossible to achieve digitally. I don't go back to film because I don't want the hassle. Everyone is different, and so I can understand why the OP leans towards the MD (which I would run a mile from).

 

* though I KNOW I am a better photographer as a result of going digital, because digital allows me to take as many photos as I want at zero marginal cost and lets me see the errors of my shooting choices immediately, and correct them.