Iceland with M10?

[willemr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I took the M10 to Iceland last month. Along with the Fuji X-T1 (with 18-55mm and a M-mount adapter). M lenses were:

• Zeiss 18mm f/4
• Zeiss 28mm f/2.8
• Summicron 35mm
• Summilux 50mm Asph.

The 35mm hasn't left my bag. I used the 50mm and 18mm the most (besides the Fuji). Basic setup was M10 + 18mm and Fuji with 18-55, which gave me a wide range of focal lengths without having to change lenses (wind, dust are all around). If you only have a 24 and 35mm I would bring them both.

The list from @djmay is accurate. I took 2 bodies just in case one should fail. I didn't use or really miss anything longer than 55mm on crop (1.5x).

 

Depending on the kind of trip: in the hotels we visited there was more than enough free wifi to backup the photos to online storage during the night (sometimes it took 7 hours to backup 16GB). While on the road I was able to charge batteries using 12V chargers (especially the DJI drone batteries drained quickly).

 

FYI; We went to the highlands as well and experienced winds exceeding 10 bft. Since there is little to no vegetation expect sandblasting. I'm still finding sand everywhere.

[Advertisement]

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

[6bit]

I took the M10 to Iceland last month. Along with the Fuji X-T1 (with 18-55mm and a M-mount adapter). M lenses were:

• Zeiss 18mm f/4
• Zeiss 28mm f/2.8
• Summicron 35mm
• Summilux 50mm Asph.

The 35mm hasn't left my bag. I used the 50mm and 18mm the most (besides the Fuji). Basic setup was M10 + 18mm and Fuji with 18-55, which gave me a wide range of focal lengths without having to change lenses (wind, dust are all around). If you only have a 24 and 35mm I would bring them both.

The list from @djmay is accurate. I took 2 bodies just in case one should fail. I didn't use or really miss anything longer than 55mm on crop (1.5x).

 

Depending on the kind of trip: in the hotels we visited there was more than enough free wifi to backup the photos to online storage during the night (sometimes it took 7 hours to backup 16GB). While on the road I was able to charge batteries using 12V chargers (especially the DJI drone batteries drained quickly).

 

FYI; We went to the highlands as well and experienced winds exceeding 10 bft. Since there is little to no vegetation expect sandblasting. I'm still finding sand everywhere.

What were the temps in the highlands?

 

Thanks for that info. Pushing me toward two Sony’s.

[willemr]

What were the temps in the highlands?

 

Thanks for that info. Pushing me toward two Sony’s.

The temperature was somewhere between 2 - 12 degrees Celsius. Depending on the day, location, altitude etc. Forcasts use basically useless in Iceland. So just be prepared for 4 seasons in one day.

[onasj]

My general rule of thumb for photo-rich trips after many photos taken with the A7riii, the M10, and most of the best of their respective lenses:

 

When I want to capture the absolute best possible photos, including under challenging lighting or limited window of opportunity conditions, and I am willing to sort through many candidates and crop and post-process to get the captures just right, I go with the A7riii and the 16-35 GM, 50/1.4, and/or 85/1.4 GM. If I need a longer telephoto prime I also take the 135/3.4 APO-M since my days lugging around a 70-200 are generally behind me.

 

When I want to get the (almost) best captures but space is limiting, I take the A7riii and the 28/2, 55/1.8, and 85/1.8, three superb smallish lenses (I’m hoping the Leica CM’s lens line looks like these but with additional Leica optical improvements and build quality.)

 

When I want to have more fun taking good photos but don’t necessarily demand the very best dynamic range, resolution, cropping ability, or detail I take the M10 plus some subset of 16-21/4, 21/3.4, 28/1.4, 35/1.4, 50 APO, 50 noct, 75 noct, 75/2.4, 90/2, and 135/3.4. Generally 21-35-75-135 or WATE-28-50-90 for a trip with a variety of subject matter.

 

If the venue is dangerous (from either environmental or human threats), I will always go for the smaller A7riii outfit since it can all be replaced for the cost of about one Leica lens.

 

That we have such excellent choices means it’s an amazing time to take photographs!

Edited June 5, 2018 by onasj

[Ernstk]

My general rule of thumb for photo-rich trips after many photos taken with the A7riii, the M10, and most of the best of their respective lenses:

 

When I want to capture the absolute best possible photos, including under challenging lighting or limited window of opportunity conditions, and I am willing to sort through many candidates and crop and post-process to get the captures just right, I go with the A7riii and the 16-35 GM, 50/1.4, and/or 85/1.4 GM. If I need a longer telephoto prime I also take the 135/3.4 APO-M since my days lugging around a 70-200 are generally behind me.

 

When I want to get the (almost) best captures but space is limiting, I take the A7riii and the 28/2, 55/1.8, and 85/1.8, three superb smallish lenses (I’m hoping the Leica CM’s lens line looks like these but with additional Leica optical improvements and build quality.)

 

When I want to have more fun taking good photos but don’t necessarily demand the very best dynamic range, resolution, cropping ability, or detail I take the M10 plus some subset of 16-21/4, 21/3.4, 28/1.4, 35/1.4, 50 APO, 50 noct, 75 noct, 75/2.4, 90/2, and 135/3.4. Generally 21-35-75-135 or WATE-28-50-90 for a trip with a variety of subject matter.

 

If the venue is dangerous (from either environmental or human threats), I will always go for the smaller A7riii outfit since it can all be replaced for the cost of about one Leica lens.

 

That we have such excellent choices means it’s an amazing time to take photographs!

 

 

You must be disappointed that your M10 can't deliver the quality that you need for serious photography?

 

Ernst

[JTLeica]

My general rule of thumb for photo-rich trips after many photos taken with the A7riii, the M10, and most of the best of their respective lenses:

 

When I want to capture the absolute best possible photos, including under challenging lighting or limited window of opportunity conditions, and I am willing to sort through many candidates and crop and post-process to get the captures just right, I go with the A7riii and the 16-35 GM, 50/1.4, and/or 85/1.4 GM. If I need a longer telephoto prime I also take the 135/3.4 APO-M since my days lugging around a 70-200 are generally behind me.

 

When I want to get the (almost) best captures but space is limiting, I take the A7riii and the 28/2, 55/1.8, and 85/1.8, three superb smallish lenses (I’m hoping the Leica CM’s lens line looks like these but with additional Leica optical improvements and build quality.)

 

When I want to have more fun taking good photos but don’t necessarily demand the very best dynamic range, resolution, cropping ability, or detail I take the M10 plus some subset of 16-21/4, 21/3.4, 28/1.4, 35/1.4, 50 APO, 50 noct, 75 noct, 75/2.4, 90/2, and 135/3.4. Generally 21-35-75-135 or WATE-28-50-90 for a trip with a variety of subject matter.

 

If the venue is dangerous (from either environmental or human threats), I will always go for the smaller A7riii outfit since it can all be replaced for the cost of about one Leica lens.

 

That we have such excellent choices means it’s an amazing time to take photographs!

 

I dont mean this as a dig, but I would love to know what you do with your A7RIII images that you cannot do with your Leica images... Being someone that shot an A7RII for two years.

[onasj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I dont mean this as a dig, but I would love to know what you do with your A7RIII images that you cannot do with your Leica images... Being someone that shot an A7RII for two years.

 

 

First, to reiterate what I posted above and many times before in the forum, I love my Leica, the plurality of my disposable income goes to Leica, and I shoot more often with my M10 or my CL than with any other camera (including my phone).  In fact I brought my M10 with me into work today, like I do most days, whether or not I expect to run into any apparent photogenic subject matter.

 

But I am also objective enough to call it like I see it, and from my perspective—consistent with many other observations and data, including some postings in LUF—the A7rIII offers some real *imaging* advantages.  That doesn't mean that the a7rIII is overall a "better" camera (I carry the M10 daily, not the A7rIII, after all), as it's not so black and white.  Size, fun factor, and other considerations weigh in as well.  

 

But since you asked about imaging, here are some advantages I've seen with the A7rIII over the M10, which includes many comparisons using the best native lenses for each system, as well as using the same M lenses on both the M10 and the A7rIII:

 

1) Cropping capability and detail.  As you might expect, having 42 MP vs. 24 MP means you have significantly more cropping flexibility and can show more detail.  Here are two photos taken with the A7rIII that are a 10 MP crop and a 16 MP crop out of the 42 MP original:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hfrphgligas10s/Sony%20a7riii%2010.3%20MP%20crop.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fdnqbuf3yboik1d/Sony%20a7riii%2016%20MP%20crop.jpg?dl=0

 

There's not much else in the original frames that I liked.  If I had taken the same photos with a 24 MP camera, even ignoring the other imaging advantages listed below, the same crops would have been 5.9 MP (6" wide printed at 300 dpi), and 9 MP (10" wide @ 300 dpi). I appreciate that for some viewing or printing formats, even a 5.9 MP image is fine.  But for printing beyond small size, or viewing on a 15 MP display like the 5K monitor that I'm using now, it's not ideal.

 

As a related point, 42 MP also helps when capturing details is important.  Here's a test photo using the A7rIII (with the native GM lens) showing its ability to capture minute detail:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/inb8frdf7hkf8we/85%20GM%20at%205.6%20on%20a7riii%20center.jpg?dl=0

I will post a comparison of the same test subject using the M10 + 75 noctiulx @ f/5.6 later (an M10 photo of the same subject at f/1.25 is posted below but that's not a fair comparison given the aperture difference), but I suspect the level of detail captured by the M10 will be lower.

 

2) Noise and ISO performance.  Consistent with other reports, at higher ISOs (>5000), the combination of a brighter frame for the A7rIII even at the same ISO setting as the M10 (see other LUF posts that have extensively discussed this topic), and an inherently less noisy sensor, I get about 1.5 stops more ISO latitude with the A7rIII than with the M10.  What might be less publicized is that even at lower ISOs I see substantially less noise with the A7rIII.  Here are two images of the same subject using the 75 noctilux.  The M10 photo was taken at ISO 800, and the A7rIII photo was taken at ISO 1000.  Yet the sensor noise in the out-of-focus wall areas is actually lower for the A7rIII photo than the M10 photo:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wa65iut21uoslcc/75%20Noct%20at%201.25%20on%20M10%20center.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rp6y0x4unk0hs1t/75%20Noct%20at%201.25%20on%20Sony%20a7riii%20center.JPG?dl=0

 

3) Color.  The M10 photos using AWB generally come out more yellow than real life, while the A7rIII photos using AWB are usually closer to real life in my experience.  The wall color in the above two photos is a good example—the actual color of the wall is very close to the A7rIII capture (rust-colored, not ochre-orange).  I routinely fix this in post, but I'd rather not have to.

 

4) Raw file headroom at the top end.  The M10's DNG files leave almost no room for highlight recovery.  The raw files of the A7rIII, like the various Nikons's I've shot in the past (D700, D800E, D810, D810A, D4, D4s) all offer quite a bit more room for highlight recovery.

 

Again, for most situations I enjoy shooting the M10 more than any other camera, which is why I use the M10 more frequently and own more M10 gear than Sony gear.  But my love for Leica does not cross into blind fanaticism (despite what my wife says!), and when shooting under conditions for which the above imagining strengths of the A7rIII are critical, I take the Sony instead.

[onasj]

To avoid hijacking this lovely Iceland thread, I'll post the promised comparison of:

M10 + 75 noct @f/5.6 vs.

A7rIII + 85 GM @ f/5.6 vs.

A7rIII + 75 noct @f/5.6 

...in a separate thread on this forum.

Edited June 6, 2018 by onasj

[250swb]

You need a geyser lens and a glacier lens, maybe a 75mm and a 24mm respectively. If Iceland has anything else to photograph you'll need to check in a guidebook.    

[JTLeica]

First, to reiterate what I posted above and many times before in the forum, I love my Leica, the plurality of my disposable income goes to Leica, and I shoot more often with my M10 or my CL than with any other camera (including my phone).  In fact I brought my M10 with me into work today, like I do most days, whether or not I expect to run into any apparent photogenic subject matter.

 

But I am also objective enough to call it like I see it, and from my perspective—consistent with many other observations and data, including some postings in LUF—the A7rIII offers some real *imaging* advantages.  That doesn't mean that the a7rIII is overall a "better" camera (I carry the M10 daily, not the A7rIII, after all), as it's not so black and white.  Size, fun factor, and other considerations weigh in as well.  

 

But since you asked about imaging, here are some advantages I've seen with the A7rIII over the M10, which includes many comparisons using the best native lenses for each system, as well as using the same M lenses on both the M10 and the A7rIII:

 

1) Cropping capability and detail.  As you might expect, having 42 MP vs. 24 MP means you have significantly more cropping flexibility and can show more detail.  Here are two photos taken with the A7rIII that are a 10 MP crop and a 16 MP crop out of the 42 MP original:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hfrphgligas10s/Sony%20a7riii%2010.3%20MP%20crop.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fdnqbuf3yboik1d/Sony%20a7riii%2016%20MP%20crop.jpg?dl=0

 

There's not much else in the original frames that I liked.  If I had taken the same photos with a 24 MP camera, even ignoring the other imaging advantages listed below, the same crops would have been 5.9 MP (6" wide printed at 300 dpi), and 9 MP (10" wide @ 300 dpi). I appreciate that for some viewing or printing formats, even a 5.9 MP image is fine.  But for printing beyond small size, or viewing on a 15 MP display like the 5K monitor that I'm using now, it's not ideal.

 

As a related point, 42 MP also helps when capturing details is important.  Here's a test photo using the A7rIII (with the native GM lens) showing its ability to capture minute detail:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/inb8frdf7hkf8we/85%20GM%20at%205.6%20on%20a7riii%20center.jpg?dl=0

I will post a comparison of the same test subject using the M10 + 75 noctiulx @ f/5.6 later (an M10 photo of the same subject at f/1.25 is posted below but that's not a fair comparison given the aperture difference), but I suspect the level of detail captured by the M10 will be lower.

 

2) Noise and ISO performance.  Consistent with other reports, at higher ISOs (>5000), the combination of a brighter frame for the A7rIII even at the same ISO setting as the M10 (see other LUF posts that have extensively discussed this topic), and an inherently less noisy sensor, I get about 1.5 stops more ISO latitude with the A7rIII than with the M10.  What might be less publicized is that even at lower ISOs I see substantially less noise with the A7rIII.  Here are two images of the same subject using the 75 noctilux.  The M10 photo was taken at ISO 800, and the A7rIII photo was taken at ISO 1000.  Yet the sensor noise in the out-of-focus wall areas is actually lower for the A7rIII photo than the M10 photo:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wa65iut21uoslcc/75%20Noct%20at%201.25%20on%20M10%20center.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rp6y0x4unk0hs1t/75%20Noct%20at%201.25%20on%20Sony%20a7riii%20center.JPG?dl=0

 

3) Color.  The M10 photos using AWB generally come out more yellow than real life, while the A7rIII photos using AWB are usually closer to real life in my experience.  The wall color in the above two photos is a good example—the actual color of the wall is very close to the A7rIII capture (rust-colored, not ochre-orange).  I routinely fix this in post, but I'd rather not have to.

 

4) Raw file headroom at the top end.  The M10's DNG files leave almost no room for highlight recovery.  The raw files of the A7rIII, like the various Nikons's I've shot in the past (D700, D800E, D810, D810A, D4, D4s) all offer quite a bit more room for highlight recovery.

 

Again, for most situations I enjoy shooting the M10 more than any other camera, which is why I use the M10 more frequently and own more M10 gear than Sony gear.  But my love for Leica does not cross into blind fanaticism (despite what my wife says!), and when shooting under conditions for which the above imagining strengths of the A7rIII are critical, I take the Sony instead.

 

I suppose that was a good answer....

 

Although I didnt see the difference in ISO you mentioned in the comparison shots?

 

Look forward to seeing the comparison between Noct and GM - GM assume would resolve more due to the nature of the 75mm, its not exactly made for resolution.

[onasj]

I suppose that was a good answer....

 

Although I didnt see the difference in ISO you mentioned in the comparison shots?

 

Look forward to seeing the comparison between Noct and GM - GM assume would resolve more due to the nature of the 75mm, its not exactly made for resolution.

I posted the comparison in the M-lenses forum. While the 75 Noct isn’t “made” for resolution per se, at f/5.6 it is as sharp or sharper according to Leica’s own MTF curves than any other M lens I own, and possible any other M lens in production (the 40 LP/mm line holds at 80% across the entire frame for both sagittal and tangential detail... which is remarkable!). As you might expect from two lenses that are each able to outresolve both sensors, the 42 MP image is far more detailed than the 24 MP one. And yes, I have actually printed multiple photos large enough (60” wide in my case) where the details matter and are seen by viewers at standard viewing distance. Edited June 7, 2018 by onasj

[luigi bertolotti]

You need a geyser lens and a glacier lens, maybe a 75mm and a 24mm respectively. If Iceland has anything else to photograph you'll need to check in a guidebook.    

… and a horses lens…

 

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!

(135)

[Bill W]

When I get the chance to go to Iceland, it will be with my SL and three zooms. 

[jaapv]

That doesn't answer the question...

[JTLeica]

When I get the chance to go to Iceland, it will be with my SL and three zooms. 

 

Hope you have a sturdy backpack 

[indergaard]

Hope you have a sturdy backpack 

 

 

And a sturdy back.

[Peter_S]

I have not been to Iceland, but I do live and work (ski guide) in Northern Norway and Georgia. So lets see..
My main concern is always swapping lenses and dust. So I would want to minimize that. And I would want a backup. Things drop. It may be a camera.  
I would also limit is to 2 or 3 distinct main focal lengths, to make it easy to previsualize a photo and not spend time on deciding AGAIN which focal length to use (and then use your time and thoughts for something else).
Look through your library and favourite photos. Which focal length is most dominant?

I would go with
- 24mm / 50mm for the main camera and
- 35mm for the second/backup.
- Throw in an M adapter for the Sony.
- Polarizing filters...think availability and filter thread sizes. 

No idea which camera is main and second, seems you have two capable bodies that are more than good enough. Pick the one that is more fun as main camera. Its the M10 and got no 50? OK then, make it M10 + 24mm & 35mm, Sony + 35mm and 50mm.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Peter_S

[Kennethjk]

A little off topic but is anything needed to protect gear from rain. Thinking of taking M10 with 50 summilux, Zeiss 18 F4 and my Q

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Exodies]

I use an umbrella which clips to the straps of my bag in torrential rain but slip the camera in and out of my coat in light rain. M240.

[willemr]

A little off topic but is anything needed to protect gear from rain. Thinking of taking M10 with 50 summilux, Zeiss 18 F4 and my Q

I used a ThinkTank retrospective 7 (shoulder) bag where I could get the camera quick in-and-out. On moments that it poured outside, I was inside, drinking coffee.

I put several silica-gel pouches in the bag against moist/dampness of the equipment. Both camera's and lenses got wet, but not soaked.

Just make sure you got a cloth of some sort to wipe the camera and lenses dry-ish.