M10 M-D

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

43 minutes ago, mmradman said:

Considering Leicas association with Huwei I think that would be mobile phone of choice.  Apple on the other hand likes to sell own products in its own mega stores.  Interesting thought, what camera brand would Apple agree to sell in own stores?

I suspect that more Leica users have iPhones than Huwei devices. What would make the best sense is for the folks at the Leica store to be ready and able to assist a customer who wants to download the app, regardless of platform, and know how to operate it on either platform. 

As to what camera brand Apple would agree to sell, well, Apple does sell third party branded things in their store but they're not equipped to educate the entire sales force on camera equipment, not to mention that it conflicts with their interest to promote that the iPhone cameras are really darn good, so I doubt they're carry any third party cameras at all. 

[Advertisement]

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

[schattenundlicht]

On 10/26/2018 at 3:40 PM, petermullett said:

Yes, me too........It caught me by surprise when my regular Leica dealer said that they could get one to me by next week, I wasn't entirely ready for that. The end of the year would have been fine, but anyway it'll be good to have an MD in my kit, sooner it seems rather than later! 

Maybe this time Leica made sure that they had cameras in stock ready to go after the announcement, or there's not the interest or demand for the camera. Time will tell.

To my understanding, they might have planned to release the M10 M-D latest at Photokina, but since the new M-D really depends on the Fotos app for full functionality, their timeline was hampered by the prolonged beta phase (or rather alpha) of the mobile software. Thus they would have had a few more weeks of production run before the official announcement.

[ynp]

3 hours ago, Dr No said:

however, we all have different levels of application and accpetability. I would suggest hat for the average user of an M10-D they will not need the colour accuracy that some require.

Very true. For copying work I profile my camera every time I shoot with either mixed light, or have to use my softboxes, they are old  and yelowish. 

To be honest, during the last 10 years the Auto White balance on the modern cameras became very good, and it’s almost impossible to get bad greens and skin tones after the correction, and they are the colors that mater for people. . And people are happy with their WB and believe that Adobe interpret their RAW files correctly. Sometimes the interpretation is very pleasant, but very far from numericaly correct colors. 

If the new MD had a direct access to WB, I would have bought it for my birthday next summer. I don’t need a screen too often. For Christmas I am going to buy a Zenit-m, my first FF CMOS camera, and it will not have an EVF,  I want to get a camera with an EVF to use my adapted lenses, hence the interest in the M-D.

Yevgeny

[IkarusJohn]

17 minutes ago, ynp said:

... And people are happy with their WB and believe that Adobe interpret their RAW files correctly. Sometimes the interpretation is very pleasant, but very far from numericaly correct colors ...

If the new MD had a direct access to WB, I would have bought it for my birthday next summer ...

Excuse the clip - I hope I'm not taking you out of context, Yevgeny.

I must say, I'm mystified by this discussion.  I agree that Auto White Balance has become very good over the last few years.  With he M9, I got into the habit of setting white balance using a grey card - not because I thought it was essential, but because I wanted the best starting point with my raw files.  When I got a bit tired of the palaver, I decided to just set the white balance at one set value; 5,500K, I think.  My reasoning was that I wanted the control, rather than leaving everything to the camera.

Then, when the M Edition 60 came along, Leica had baked in Auto White balance - it couldn't be changed.  I argued with Leica about this (as did Jono, if I recall correctly).  Leica refused to budge.  What I found was surprising - the Auto White Balance in the raw files was very good.  So good, I couldn't replicate it.  I'd set the white balance in LightRoom to, say, 5,500K and then try to adjust the channels to get a better result.  I couldn't - I'm no expert, but the raw files straight out of the M60 could rarely be improved on, from a white balance point of view; at least, not without wasting considerable time and effort.

Now, you and Dr No probably have skills and experience far in excess of what I can achieve - and if you do, I'm not sure why the out of camera raw set with AWB should be any more difficult to correct or adjust than any other raw file.  The in camera processing may be baked in, but for someone with your skills, surely this isn't insurmountable?

I'm also not sure what the concept of "numerically correct colours" means.  Much like ISO, the starting point is sensitivity of the sensor and how that is extrapolated (or mosaiced or de-mosaiced or whatever the correct expression is).  Most of us who use the M camera don't expect the level of accuracy one might expect of a scientific instrument, and I suspect few of us have the skills to process the output.

Put me at the bottom of the skill level, if you prefer, but I'm pretty happy with the output from my Leica cameras (as I was with my preferred film), and I'm not at all surprised that the technicians at Leica who set the parameters for processing the sensor output do a better job than me.  That wouldn't be hard at all. 

[ramarren]

The M-D262 seems the same as the ME60 with respect to AWB. 

The only time I need to get the identical/same white balance is if I'm doing copy work and need to set a specific number for all captured frames because they need to be composited or otherwise merged to be right beside each other, where a white balance shift of a few degrees will matter. It's easy enough to shoot with AWB and then lock a specific WB setting using Photoshop, Lightroom, or any other good image processing tool in that case. If you're exposing correctly, you're never going to blow out one channel entirely while keeping the others in the ball park unless the lighting is pathologically way off, at which point what you need is color filtration on the capture end of the game. 

[paorin]

21 hours ago, ramarren said:

(bolded1) Not a lot, if you don't use the EVF. 

(bolded2) Well, in this case, you now have an M10-P for which none of the configuration controls are available unless you use your smartphone. If you stated, "... If you're not fiddling with the configuration and don't use the EVF, what are you left with? an M10-P without an LCD or the control buttons that surround it - perfect," I agree completely. 

I tend to set my camera up for use and then not change anything but ISO, aperture, and shutter speed for long periods of time, so the M-D and this M10-D will operate pretty much the same in my use. I also tend to use DNG only most of the time, so configuration controls for JPEG output are usually left at the defaults or forgotten. 

I was out shooting with the Leica R6.2 today and tried leaving the lever out and using it as a thumb rest. Sorry, it doesn't work for me at all: it just gets in the way. If I buy an M10-D, it will be removed, no question.

I think that the main problem of the M10-D is that it targets the same users of the M10, as it is not very different.

The M-D was a bold statement: no LCD, no live view, no settings but exposure and focusing, no EVF, no way to review the photos. It was a camera that really focused on the essential and that was interesting to anyone who wanted to experience the same workflow as film photography with a digital camera.

The M10-D instead doesn’t remove all the options and controls of the M10, it just moves them.

Because of this decision of keeping EVF and live view (with the Visoflex) you cannot cock the shutter manually, so the lever becomes just a laughable thumb rest.

The M10-D is not a camera that makes you experience the same workflow as film photography with a digital camera, it’s just a variant of the M10.

[SiggiGun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This could be an interesting alternative. Same spirit, but,....

https://www.01net.com/actualites/pixii-le-premier-appareil-photo-fabrique-en-france-depuis-40-ans-est-bientot-la-1552603.html

 

[a.noctilux]

Of course interesting, but alternative I don't think so 😁.

We already have a thread, here PIXII (merge)

Maybe even not available before long, M10-D IS available now.

[Fedro]

Ok, I made up my mind, I am leaving this one alone and will stick to the MD

I love that the MD is sturdy, with good picture quality, no frills and very few things that can break - it is better suited to be a back up digital M body for a few years (and it will brass too)

I love that despite it having a more modern sensor than the M240, I paid for  a new one less than I would have paid for a new M240 at the time. This is how it should be, IMHO

I use it mostly as a back up to the M10 or on its own with a 28/35/50 lens in non critical light conditions so not sure I would need the WIFI, Visoflex etc  anyways

Just called my beloved dealer to let them know I am dropping off the waiting list

[IkarusJohn]

I think that’s a good choice, Fedro.

[Tobers]

I handled the M10-D in Red Dot Cameras today, as they have one available for playing with. I’m a M9, M240, M10 owner by the way, and now using a CL. Here’s a few initial impressions:

1. The winder. It’s actually incredibly good as a thumb “brace” to hold the camera one-handed. It’s far more secure-feeling than a thumbs-up of which I’ve had two. 
2. The on-off switch/dial on the back is stupid and unintuitive. Fiddly, and not very positive. A retrograde step versus the simple on/off switch of the M10.
3. The exposure compensation dial is weird, though I guess it’s OK in a way. If using the camera in manual mode, you don’t need it. If you are seeking exposure compensation (eg using auto-ISO), then using the horizontal rear dial under your thumb seems a much simpler approach, though without the visual sight of the actual setting that you get with the marked up dial that is there.

Overall I think it’s a wasted opportunity. Ditch the continuous shooting, and use the winder to cock the shutter (and turn the camera on).  Use a “normal” on/off switch and leave the rear dial as exposure compensation only.

Clearly it would be rather expensive to have the winder lever cocking the shutter (lots of retooling needed). So they’ve created a sort of bodge which, while good as an aid to holding the camera, is actually rather laughable and false. And the rear dial seems unneccessarily complex with two functions rather than one.

Still, it felt nice and smelt good. 

[jmahto]

On 10/29/2018 at 1:14 PM, Tobers said:

I handled the M10-D in Red Dot Cameras today, as they have one available for playing with. I’m a M9, M240, M10 owner by the way, and now using a CL. Here’s a few initial impressions:

1. The winder. It’s actually incredibly good as a thumb “brace” to hold the camera one-handed. It’s far more secure-feeling than a thumbs-up of which I’ve had two. 
2. The on-off switch/dial on the back is stupid and unintuitive. Fiddly, and not very positive. A retrograde step versus the simple on/off switch of the M10.
3. The exposure compensation dial is weird, though I guess it’s OK in a way. If using the camera in manual mode, you don’t need it. If you are seeking exposure compensation (eg using auto-ISO), then using the horizontal rear dial under your thumb seems a much simpler approach, though without the visual sight of the actual setting that you get with the marked up dial that is there.

Overall I think it’s a wasted opportunity. Ditch the continuous shooting, and use the winder to cock the shutter (and turn the camera on).  Use a “normal” on/off switch and leave the rear dial as exposure compensation only.

Clearly it would be rather expensive to have the winder lever cocking the shutter (lots of retooling needed). So they’ve created a sort of bodge which, while good as an aid to holding the camera, is actually rather laughable and false. And the rear dial seems unneccessarily complex with two functions rather than one.

Still, it felt nice and smelt good. 

I was thinking on similar lines. Shutter cocking would have been perfect (and no one will complain). It doesn't discount continuous shooting. One can simply enable it in the menu so that cocking is not needed. (think motor drive attached).

[wattsy]

Shutter cocking using this lever would be equally false and serve no useful purpose. The battery power expended cocking the shutter is negligible so manually winding it would just be a design affectation. The Epson RD-1 had a manual 'wind-on' lever because that camera was built using a Bessa body which used a manually cocked shutter. That was the nature of that camera chassis and Epson essentially shoehorned the digital guts into it. On the other hand, the Leica digital rangefinder is built around an electronically cocked shutter so adding a manual wind option would be broadly the equivalent of Tesla adding a crank handle to start one of their cars.

[lct]

The R-D1 did not need big batteries though. 

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!

[wattsy]

1 hour ago, lct said:

The R-D1 did not need big batteries though. 

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!

What's your point? Are you suggesting that the difference in battery size has anything to do with electronically cocking the shutter?

[scott kirkpatrick]

In fact, the CL (and V-Lux 4, Q) battery shown holds 1250 mA-hours of power, while the Epson cell is rated at 1500 mA-h.  So the Epson needed more power to get its work done, while driving only 1/6 the number of pixels.

[jkcampbell2]

1 hour ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

In fact, the CL (and V-Lux 4, Q) battery shown holds 1250 mA-hours of power, while the Epson cell is rated at 1500 mA-h.  So the Epson needed more power to get its work done, while driving only 1/6 the number of pixels.

Nothing to do with the shutter, the Epson was a CCD sensor which requires far more power to run (like 100 times) than the Leica CL CMOS sensor.  Cheers, jc

[lct]

I could shoot about 300 pics with those small batteries i.e. almost as many as with the digital CL. BTW the regular R-D1 batteries were 1200 mAh if memory serves.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonoslack]

On 10/27/2018 at 11:58 PM, IkarusJohn said:

Excuse the clip - I hope I'm not taking you out of context, Yevgeny.

I must say, I'm mystified by this discussion.  I agree that Auto White Balance has become very good over the last few years.  With he M9, I got into the habit of setting white balance using a grey card - not because I thought it was essential, but because I wanted the best starting point with my raw files.  When I got a bit tired of the palaver, I decided to just set the white balance at one set value; 5,500K, I think.  My reasoning was that I wanted the control, rather than leaving everything to the camera.

Then, when the M Edition 60 came along, Leica had baked in Auto White balance - it couldn't be changed.  I argued with Leica about this (as did Jono, if I recall correctly).  Leica refused to budge.  What I found was surprising - the Auto White Balance in the raw files was very good.  So good, I couldn't replicate it.  I'd set the white balance in LightRoom to, say, 5,500K and then try to adjust the channels to get a better result.  I couldn't - I'm no expert, but the raw files straight out of the M60 could rarely be improved on, from a white balance point of view; at least, not without wasting considerable time and effort.

 

Hi There John

Whilst I agree with you that AWB is very good these days I still shoot sunny white balance in the daytime and very very rarely change the colour. It's because that's my 'film-stock' colour, I shoot a lot with sunshine and shade, and inevitably AWB is going to get it wrong either in the sunshine or in the shade! I simply don't think there is a 'correct' WB in mixed lighting (which includes sunlight and shade) - the colour changes with the light (rather than being corrected for it). I like it, and it was my main reason for never using an MD - I'm fine with the M10-D because I'll only change the WB (at most) once a day (I do shoot Auto in artificial light). 

Best

 

[Photon42]

Does it really matter so much, if you only shoot RAW? Changing the imported files to a specific colour temperature is about a couple of clicks away in post processing.