leica m10 My very late Leica M10 Review

[indergaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just finished my image-heavy review of the Leica M10 after about eight months of ownership. I hope you enjoy my review, which is a follow-up review of late Leica M240 review I did a couple of years ago. But most importantly I hope you enjoy the photographs.

Check it out at: https://indergaard.net/2018/10/14/the-very-late-leica-m10-review/

[Advertisement]

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

[Mr Fjeld]

Beautiful - no - fantastic photos from Lofoten! Oh, and I also enjoyed your review of the M10

[Kim Dahl]

Hej. Et skønt og ærligt rewiew. Tusind tak for det. Jeg er bla. selv M bruger (M-D). Jeg tænker på om du har overvejet SL (evt når SL2 kommer) så kan du bruge M optik og mulighed for SL optik i fremtiden ?

[dkmoore]

Excellent review of the M10. Even better pictures.  Makes me want to go to Norway ASAP.

Well done all the way around.

[david strachan]

Thank you for the excellent review.  Nice to see a fair criticism, including other cameras as well...particularly not slagging the M240...i have M-P. Very balanced and covered averything i wanted to know.

 

Lovely pictures; all of them.

 

Thank you Indergaard.

[Guest]

Good review, thank you Indergaard. I fully agree with your comments regarding the viewfinder's difficulty with wide field of view and the pretty much useless ASA knob. Personally, as I've said before on this forum, I'd had loved to have the option of a .58 finder with the M10 body, and the absence of the ASA knob so that the camera body could be more M9'ish. I too find the 240's way of changing ASA much better, surer..........As David Strachan says it's nice that there's no slagging of the 240 for a change in a review. I still find the 240 to be an extremely capable camera and wouldn't sell mine, it complements the M10 very well in the kit. Otherwise, like you I am quite content with the M10.

[jmr237]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am not sure I understand the critique of the M10 viewfinder. I thought it was supposed to be easier to see the 28mm framelines?

[CharlesL]

Thank you, especially for the many comparisons with the M240. Choices will differ, but for me the advantages mostly lie with the M240.

 

[Jeff S]

In addition to higher magnification versus the M240 (.73x vs .68x), the field of view was increased 30% and eye relief was increased 50%.  As an eyeglass wearer, I greatly prefer the M10 VF.

Different strokes....

Jeff

[jmr237]

51 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

In addition to higher magnification versus the M240 (.73x vs .68x), the field of view was increased 30% and eye relief was increased 50%.  As an eyeglass wearer, I greatly prefer the M10 VF.

Different strokes....

Jeff

Exactly ... this is why I don't think I am understanding why some people are saying the M10 viewfinder is more difficult to use with wider lenses.

[indergaard]

8 hours ago, jmr237 said:

Exactly ... this is why I don't think I am understanding why some people are saying the M10 viewfinder is more difficult to use with wider lenses.

If you google it, or search for it here on this forum, you will find a lot of people experiencing the opposite. The increased magnification also means that it is more difficult to see the frame lines of wide angle lenses. The M240's frame lines are by far easier to see, regardless of the focal length. Using 35mm and wider with my MP it is far easier to see the frame lines without "looking around inside the VF" than on the M10.

Basically the 28mm frame lines have about the same visibility on an M240 as the 35mm frame lines has on an M10, at least for my eyes, face, eye sockets and prescription. 

I guess it might be affected by what type of glasses and prescription people have, and how peoples faces are shaped, etc, etc. Different strokes.... As Jeff says.

The best thing is to just try for yourself. All photo stores that sell Leica should have a demo M10 by now.

Edited October 16, 2018 by indergaard

[Jeff S]

Putting other variables aside, thin and flexible frames (if the prescription allows) will assist in getting one’s eye closer to any M VF for a wider field of vision.

Jeff

[adan]

Allowing for personal preferences and priorities, a good review.

My only real quibble would be regarding the critique of the default "M10 Embedded" color calibration profile. No single profile is good for daylight and yellow indoor light - unless it is a compromise that is less-than-perfect for either. I've always created separate profiles for daylight and for yellow light, and the M10 is no different - a minor tweak of the embedded for daylight, (saved as default) and a larger tweak for yellow light (to be applied as a saved pre-set when needed.)

But a salute for the reminder that pretty much anything in LR can be reset and then "Saved" as a custom camera default. No need to put up with Adobe's ideas about how your pictures should look.

I wear glasses, and I have trouble seeing the 28mm lines on pretty much any M, except the .58 (and the similar Konica Hexar RF .62). They disappear into the "black" tunnel edges. So I just sort of "gestalt" the whole finder area when using a 28. I don't have time to be doing the "Chameleon Dance" and rolling my eyes around to find the 28 lines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaNzChBiOLM

Drifting the thread a bit further, my main beef with the M10 finder is exactly the increased eye-relief (larger eyepiece). It allows the eye to get uncentered more easily, as with the Konica and .58, and then the RF images start moving around relative to one another, all on their own. Meaning that "aligned RF" no longer means "in focus." Having to keep track of eye position is distracting in "fluid" situations, so after 18 months,  I've dumped my 75/90s for the more tolerant DoF of a 50 f/2 as a "short tele."

(For whatever reason: longer subject distances, f/4-5.6, longer focus throw, more careful "graphic" composition, and thus slower operation anyway - it is not as much of a problem with the 135.)

I also find the M10 RF prone to "drift" in infinity focus, so I carry two 2mm hex tools in my bag, in case I notice the OOF rate starting to climb. Fortunately, a 1-minute adjustment when needed. I also find it more prone to flare or white-out of the RF patch. So on the whole, now that the body thickness is down to M7/MP size, I'd prefer the M11 to just revert to the M7/MP finder.

[elmars]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb indergaard:

If you google it, or search for it here on this forum, you will find a lot of people experiencing the opposite. The increased magnification also means that it is more difficult to see the frame lines of wide angle lenses. The M240's frame lines are by far easier to see, regardless of the focal length. Using 35mm and wider with my MP it is far easier to see the frame lines without "looking around inside the VF" than on the M10.

Basically the 28mm frame lines have about the same visibility on an M240 as the 35mm frame lines has on an M10, at least for my eyes, face, eye sockets and prescription. 

I guess it might be affected by what type of glasses and prescription people have, and how peoples faces are shaped, etc, etc. Different strokes.... As Jeff says.

The best thing is to just try for yourself. All photo stores that sell Leica should have a demo M10 by now.

I had the same glasses for the M262 and for my M10. I can see the framelines of the M10 as good as the ones of the M262. The eyepiece of the M10 is greater so one would guess the framelines can be seen better. But the magnification of the viewfinder is greater, what cancels the greater eyepiece. So: No advantage with the framelines (but no degradation too), but a greater, clearer image due to the magnification. 

[microview]

Yes, the things criticised are those which meant I didn't like the M10 all that much. Went back to an M262 which I find much nicer to use (loss of live view of no interest), although extended ISO on M10 is certainly a big plus.

[Guest]

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 11:37 PM, adan said:

 

I also find the M10 RF prone to "drift" in infinity focus, so I carry two 2mm hex tools in my bag, in case I notice the OOF rate starting to climb. Fortunately, a 1-minute adjustment when needed.

Interesting....how often do you need to do this?

[adan]

Well, it's a bit complicated, since I have two M10s (bought new 2/17 and used 5/18). And I now suspect two of the times were due to a faulty new lens (it had other problems as well - returned). I made the "mistake" of adjusting for it, and once it was gone, had to re-adjust.

But about 4 other times total across both cameras since 2/17, not with any regular time spacing. So a "mean time between failures" of about 6 months, thus far.

I just begin to notice focus issues becoming more common in "tough" situations (75 @ 2.4 at 0.7m; 135 at 50 yds/meters), and go find a subject 1.5miles/2km away (or in one case, the Moon), and yep, the RF images don't q-u-i-t-e mesh when the lens is set to infinity. Get out the wrench, tweak until "infinity" lines up right, focus is back on track everywhere, and across all my other lenses.

I did notice that it was quite easy to turn the tool, especially with my original body (silver). As though the RF cam eccentric was perhaps a bit more free to move out of adjustment than the factory intended. Or they left out the drop of Loctite™.

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by adan

[Rob L]

I'm not a glasses wearer, but for me the 28mm frame is easier to see in the M10 than the M240 by a fair amount. With M240 I had to really look for the frame sides and I never got comfortable using my 28mm lenses. M10 is better for 28mm, no question.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wizard]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Rob L:

I'm not a glasses wearer, but for me the 28mm frame is easier to see in the M10 than the M240 by a fair amount. ...

Same here, when I recently tried out the M10P in a shop, I even mentioned to the shop owner that the 28mm frame lines on the M10/M10P are about as easy to see as the 35mm frame lines on earlier models.