Leica M10 Ordered; What is about a lens

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Or, shall I use circular polarizer?

Or linear polarizer. The M10 does not need a circular one.

[evikne]

Question regarding the shutter speed. Since M10 shutter speed is 1/4000, will ND filter will act as 1/16000?! I mean If I shoot with f2 and speed 1/4000 and the result is white image or extremely bright: What ND filter rating should I choose? For the lens Leica 50mm f2

 

If you wish to shoot at f/2.0 with 1/4000 shutter speed and ISO 200 (best performance) in the brightest light, you will need a 1 stop ND filter (equivalent for 1/8000 shutter speed, which doesn't exist on M10). But you can also use ISO 100 without any filter. Or you can use a 2 or 3 stop ND filter, with slower shutter speeds.

 

I use a 3 stop ND filter when I use my Noctilux f/1.0 wide open in sunlight (1/4000, ISO 200).

Edited July 25, 2018 by evikne

[M11 for me]

i have my M10 for over a year by now and make mainly landscape and never needed an ND filter for the purpose you describe. I live in middle of Europe and the light might be a bit different

[IkarusJohn]

Wosamko, you are chasing up too many blind alleys. I’m a bit concerned that you have an idea, and it is running away with you!

 

I think you said your background was dSLR?

 

My story is that I had a Nikon F5 and some nice lenses. They all got stolen, so I set out in search of a replacement. At that time, the logical best replacment was a Canon 5D2. I held one in the shop, with one of Canon’s best lenses (an L something, or US. I think one of the lenses was huge and white). There were buttons everywhere (randomnly placed it seemed to me), lots of plastic and everything hidden in menus. I hid my head and thought to myself, why make something so simple complicated?

 

Subsequently I’ve had a Sony A7r (with matching lenses) and a Nikon d800e (a disaster of a camera, in my view). But they were for my reasons - the A7 had an awful menu system, random buttons and felt like a piece of soap in my hands (too small and slippery) and it performed badly with Leica lenses; the Nikon was vast, complicated and didn’t give me appreciably better images than the M9. Did I say it was vast and complicated?

 

So, what about the M9? I’d never owned a Leica; the shop didn’t have one for me to try - all I’d done was read about them. The appeal of the M9 was (1) Leica lenses, (2) direct control of focus, f-stop and shutter, with easy access to ISO and nothing else to get in the way, and (3) it’s delightful simplicity in a compact, well made package. Much like you, I hunted the internet and found that Meister in Berlin had a camera in stock. They were very hard to get in those days, and Meister were very helpful.

 

I was completely confused by the lens nomenclature, and could make neither hide nor hair of the choices. I went with Meister’s recommendation of a 35 Summicron ASPH (apparently Leica’s biggest selling lens at that time) - I eventually sold that lens for a reasonable price as I’m not a 35mm kind of guy. I find that focal length ... boring.

 

The reason for my little story is my experience when the camera arrived. I had used SLR cameras almost exclusively for over 30 years (like Godfrey, my favourites were the Nikon FE & FM series - robust and direct control). The M9 was a surprise. Unboxing it, and all that German engineering was a delight - my new toy! But then, I discovered the reality of the rangefinder (or reminded myself - I’d had a Canonet as a child). What you see through the focusing window is a fixed image; it doesn’t change with lenses; it’s just a plain window on the world. Focusing is split image only in the focusing patch, with no other focus aids. This came as an initial surpise.

 

In practice, it was remarkably easy to take a photo and forget to focus at all. But with practice, despite it’s inherent shortcomings, the rangefinder is a delight to use. What takes an image? First, get your ISO about right; second, if it matters to you, get your white balance right for the conditions (easy to do with a white balance card if you’re that much if a control freak, which I tend to be); third work out where to put your camera for the best composition and focus; fourth, chose the appropriate f-stop for the depth of field for your subject; and fifth, check that the shutter speed is not going to cause you problems.

 

The rangefinder is just an aid - a good aid, but irrelevant to image quality.

 

To me, this is the remarkable strength of the M system - fantastic lenses, and direct control of ISO, aperture, focus and shutter speed. Nothing else matters. You won’t get that purity of approach from any Sony, Nikon or Canon; but I do think you need to prepare yourself for a surprise - the M camera is a whole lot less than you might expect, but way more than you appreciate once (if) you get your head around it. Forget your justifications, forget your criteria, and take the time to understand and get to know your M10 when it arrives. It will surprise and delight you, if you get to understand it on it’s own terms.

 

Otherwise, the Sonys really are very good, they will give very good image quality and they might be more familiar and comfortable for you. I say that in all honesty.

 

John

 

(Sorry about the length if this - it’s late and my medication is probably interfering).

[Jeff S]

I know animals are faster the human like a horse. Ability to smell 1000 times more than human like a dog. Can hear far away like bats/owls. Can fly. Have mouths that break tables easily and stomach to melt the iron like crocodile. So, human is weaker than animal BUT we have brains unlike animals. Animals can think but unlike human.

 

I said in general we keep our thoughts changed to describe my self why I am changing the questions and answer without humiliating animals at all. Now days, sometimes I get a feeling of prefering animals more than humans

There are plenty of humans who couldn’t figure out how to open complex mechanical lock sequences, even after changing the order and functionality of the locking mechanisms....

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/grrlscientist/2013/jul/10/lock-picking-cockatoos

 

There are many other studies that demonstrate the ability of animals to learn, communicate, empathize and solve problems in ways that humans are only beginning to realize.

 

As I wrote before others chimed in, you do a disservice to many animals, and give far too much credit to many humans.... especially including learning from newly presented information.

 

Jeff

[ramarren]

@ hteasley and ramarren: ok ok, sorry, I’ll specify: Leica has always been excellent in rangefinders. In SLR’s they were not excellent and if so, often too late. But that is beside OP’s question. To be short: I prefer an M9 over an M10

 

 

It's good we have so many choices to satisfy our diverse opinions.

• The Leicaflex SL was excellent and is my favorite Leica SLR. The Minolta-derived bodies of the R3 to R7 never appealed to me much, although some were very good cameras. The R8-R9 were brilliant again, but my R8 had some flakey electronics issues. Nearly all the R prime lenses were/are superb, several of the zooms too. I don't know what it means for a camera to be "too late"? What footrace is the camera trying to win? 
• Had an M9; was glad that it came up with the sensor corrosion and I could get an M-P240 at discount with a trade-in. 
• I later replaced the M-P with an M-D typ 262. This is my favorite ever Leica M, next to my M4-2. 

Modern EVFs work very well, better for me than most SLR reflex viewfinders. They let me see what I'm doing in ways that no reflex or optical tunnel viewfinder can. They don't replace the way I see with an optical tunnel viewfinder, that allows me to see very differently, but they do pretty much replace an SLR viewfinder except in very specific circumstances (mostly when used with long telephoto lenses or when capturing fast sequences). 

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You mean through M10 menu I can tell I am shooting through Zeiss lenses? So then M10 will take care of the colors?

 

Of course there are no Zeiss lenses in the list which you find in the M10 menu.

 

The sensor of the M10 copes much better with the problem of light rays hitting it in a sharp angle - so the M10 does not need much correction of colour shifts.

 

In my experience jaapv's description here is completely right: 

 

 

Ummm.. Leica does nothing to improve the rendering of a lens in their M10 profiles. Only vignetting and sometimes a smidgen of distortion correction. Anything else you might see is a placebo effect.

The coding was introduced on the M8 to combat extreme colour shifting in the corners and to enable EXIF data. That is when the development was done (2004-2006). Even then there was no attempt to influence the rendering of any lens.

With the M10 this is no longer needed, except for some vestigial corrections and EXIF (on which even aperture was dropped) There is no reason, however, not to leave the system in place.

 

If you claim to have seen differences, back it up with your results and testing method. It will be interesting, because you will be the first of all reviewers to document this.

 

One may say: but I have seen differences with lens detection on or off with the M8, M9, M (Typ 240) or M (Typ 262). O.k.; but you'll see much much less with the M10.

 

Whoever wants to make his M10 apply something on the files of a lens by Zeiss or Voigtländer, may choose some detection for a similar Leica lens from the menu, or even have the lens coded with a 6-bit code which he likes. It won't bother the camera at all and the files won't mind.

 

The whole discussion about detection and profiles for lenses of non-Leica brands shows what lens detection has (also) been from the very beginning: a marketing trick (not only a marketing trick, since it was and still is convenient in some respects).

 

Lens detection for Leica lenses makes people think: oh, they have their own profiles which I'll miss when I do not use a Leica lens. This is not true. The "profiles" are not Leica-exclusive. They work as well with other lenses (at least on the M10). 

[otto.f]

The R8 was too late given what competitors had to offer since about 10 years, apart from their lens fleet. The R5 was a good camera, not too reliable either, but ok and also just a necessary means to an end: some really interesting or astounding R lenses

[jaapv]

The R7 was the right camera at the right time in my experience. A number of weaknesses of the R4/R5/R6 series, like the vulnerable lens mount, were corrected and it was completely reliable. I can still remember being horrified at the size and over-engineered  complexity of the R8. 

[ramarren]

The R8 was too late given what competitors had to offer since about 10 years, apart from their lens fleet. The R5 was a good camera, not too reliable either, but ok and also just a necessary means to an end: some really interesting or astounding R lenses

 

I don't engage in the "Monday night football game" discussion of how companies manage industry competition. I evaluate the cameras only on the basis of what I'm looking for and what they do.

 

The R7 was the right camera at the right time in my experience. A number of weaknesses of the R4/R5/R6 series, like the vulnerable lens mount, were corrected and it was completely reliable. I can still remember being horrified at the size and over-engineered  complexity of the R8. 

 

 

The R8 and R9 were larger than I preferred, and more complex electronically than they needed to be, but darn they had superb ergonomics and a stonking excellent viewfinder.

 

As I said before, my favorite of the Leica SLRs was the Leicaflex SL. They were superbly made, the right size and weight, had a beautiful viewfinder but were just too expensive to build and sell at a profitable price point. That's why Leica went into the partnership with Minolta on the body production for the R3 to R7, to reduce cost of manufacture.  

[otto.f]

They should never not have left the cotton shutter curtain of the SL. But probably I’m just nostalgic

[M11 for me]

there is organic cotton nowadays. In german they call it Bio Baumwolle.

[jdlaing]

Ahhhhh........all cotton is organic. It grows in the dirt.

[Jeff S]

Ahhhhh........all cotton is organic. It grows in the dirt.

Along with all the chemicals put into it, etc...

 

http://ecofriendonline.com/2016/03/31/why-organic-cotton-vs-non-organic/

 

Jeff

[jdlaing]

Though you probably could eat it I don’t think it’s palitable.

Once processed the so called chemicals are a moot point anyway.

[Jeff S]

So you didn’t read or research.

 

Jeff

[jdlaing]

I live in cotton country. You’ll have a hard time selling hogwash here.

[Jeff S]

That explains it. I have no vested interest, other than for a healthy environment. Chemicals (pesticides, fertilizers, etc) don’t disappear from the ground, even if they don’t end up in our clothes.

 

Jeff

[hteasley]

That explains it. I have no vested interest, other than for a healthy environment. Chemicals (pesticides, fertilizers, etc) don’t disappear from the ground, even if they don’t end up in our clothes.

 

Jeff

You realize organic growing uses many of the same chemicals, just not sourced from the same places, right?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

You realize organic growing uses many of the same chemicals, just not sourced from the same places, right?

True organic uses natural sources. Not the same. You realize that, right?

 

Jeff