What sets M10 apart?

[Nicushor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

Putting everything apart (and lenses too) what is the thing that makes photos so much better than M9 for example? 

[Advertisement]

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

[Paulus]

Welcome to the forum!

 

 

 

[Chaemono]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb Nicushor:

Hi,

Putting everything apart (and lenses too) what is the thing that makes photos so much better than M9 for example? 

Here we go, again. You’re asking ‘what sets the M10 apart?’ We’ll, it’s not about the photos. The slow, recocking shutter sound of the M9 drives the opposite sex away, especially during mating season. I switched to the M10-P, therefore. It’s quieter shutter mechanism is more compatible with the estrous cycle. The photos are basically the same. 

[Chaemono]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Paulus:

Welcome to the forum!

 

 

 

There’s half people in this picture. Just sayin.

[Paulus]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Chaemono:

There’s half people in this picture. Just sayin.

I don't understand what you are saying? Please explain, what is wrong with this link of a thread  tightly related to this thread.

[Chaemono]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb Paulus:

..., what is wrong with this link of a thread  tightly related to this thread.

Nothing wrong, just sayin ‘just sayin.’

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Saying what?

[Chaemono]

vor 13 Minuten schrieb IkarusJohn:

Saying what?

Sorry, I thought I was clear but I realize that it didn’t finish the sentence.  The M10 isn’t better than the M9 or the M8, for that matter, where it counts, (quoting/paraphrasing Andy in #23 of the linked thread by Paulus), all three allow for “composition... - in the movement and body-language and gestures and relationships between objects within the frame.”

[a.noctilux]

 

10 hours ago, Nicushor said:

Hi,

Putting everything apart (and lenses too) what is the thing that makes photos so much better than M9 for example? 

Hello,

In my modest "photos libraries", nothing "better" with any kind of camera I've used.

Camera is part of other parameters (eye, subject, moment's or lens's settings choices, etc.) which "make a photo".

 

[adan]

Pretty simple, really. The picture below was made with an M10 and 135mm lens at f/4 - at ISO 10000.

I have adjusted the right side to approximate how an M9 image, at max ISO of 2500, then underexposed 2 stops to reach effective ISO 10000, would have looked, once the brightness was corrected. Noise, banding, loss of dynamic range, etc.. I used an M9 happily for 7 years - but I know its limitations... realistically, the M9 could not have taken this picture.

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!

Of course, I could have used a 90 f/2.0 at ISO 2500, but then I would have captured a lot of excess background, and had to crop. And the noise would still have been messier than the M10 at 10000.

The quieter shutter certainly helps in concert situations, and (as anyone knows whose windows shake and rattle when it thunders), noise = vibration.

The M10 VF/RF focuses long or fast lenses a bit more reliably.

I find the extra 6 Mpixels to not make much difference, though.

[Paulus]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Chaemono:

Sorry, I thought I was clear but I realize that it didn’t finish the sentence.  The M10 isn’t better than the M9 or the M8, for that matter, where it counts, (quoting/paraphrasing Andy in #23 of the linked thread by Paulus), all three allow for “composition... - in the movement and body-language and gestures and relationships between objects within the frame.”

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that way of thinking make this right?: " There is nothing better than the  camera of Ansel Adams." The fact that cameras develop implicates that we want something to be better about them. With better I don't mean the composition factor, but the simplicity or comfort or reliability of the camera. So we don't need a donkey to carry them. 

[Chaemono]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Paulus:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that way of thinking make this right?: " There is nothing better than the  camera of Ansel Adams." The fact that cameras develop implicates that we want something to be better about them. With better I don't mean the composition factor, but the simplicity or comfort or reliability of the camera. So we don't need a donkey to carry them. 

See Andy’s post #10 above. 

[Paulus]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb adan:

Pretty simple, really. The picture below was made with an M10 and 135mm lens at f/4 - at ISO 10000.

I have adjusted the right side to approximate how an M9 image, at max ISO of 2500, then underexposed 2 stops to reach effective ISO 10000, would have looked, once the brightness was corrected. Noise, banding, loss of dynamic range, etc.. I used an M9 happily for 7 years - but I know its limitations... realistically, the M9 could not have taken this picture.

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!

Of course, I could have used a 90 f/2.0 at ISO 2500, but then I would have captured a lot of excess background, and had to crop. And the noise would still have been messier than the M10 at 10000.

The quieter shutter certainly helps in concert situations, and (as anyone knows whose windows shake and rattle when it thunders), noise = vibration.

The M10 VF/RF focuses long or fast lenses a bit more reliably.

I find the extra 6 Mpixels to not make much difference, though.

Good example  I think.

About the shutter: I have a habit of listening to the music , while I make the picture. I am grown up with making pictures during music, it was my core business so to say and learned to never take a picture, when the music is quiet, because it's part of the musicality to be quiet at that moment. Musicians get angry sometimes when they hear your shutter, not because the hear it, but because it was a moment in music where quietness in the music was their goal and photographers tend to ruin that goal sometimes. There is no shutter so quiet in the world which cannot ruin such goal so I don't even try. Stay with the flow and take the pictures in the ritme of the music during it and nobody hears your shutter. Not even a Nikon F3 shutter is audible at such moments. 

Recently I was in a concerthall, where a photographer ( Two Nikon D4s ') had the mission to ruin everything. He made pictures only in the quiet moments. Nobody listen to the music anymore, but watched him with growing disdain. He kept doing this for over an hour. That was the last time he was welcome in this concerthall. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Paulus

[Nicushor]

Thank's for the answers, really helpful. So one cannot know what to expect from the next Leica camera? Or one should imagine the...? what? I find it strange a person would rather choose M6 over M9 for example, because it suits his personality better. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Nicushor

[Paulus]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Nicushor:

So one cannot know what to expect from the next Leica camera? r. 

One can expect a lot and speculate about it. It happens here:

 

 

[jaapv]

In that case you have never really used an M6...

[adan]

23 hours ago, Paulus said:

Musicians get angry sometimes when they hear your shutter, not because the hear it, but because it was a moment in music where quietness in the music was their goal and photographers tend to ruin that goal sometimes.

Indeed. Which is one reason I want to be able to use the long-but-slow 135mm f/4 for concerts - I can stand "out of the way" and even behind a column, or sit on the floor, and minimize my presence in several ways beyond the actual "sound."

First time I ever had a Leica in hand once I started working professionally (1980), the children's hospital where I worked asked me to come up and photograph a TV crew doing a story about a patient. I grabbed my new, personal M2/28mm in place of my Nikons, and used that. I moved around the edges of the room, shooting, as the crew filmed.

After about 5 minutes, the TV director said, "OK, you can take pictures now." I pointed out I had already been taking pictures for 5 minutes, but had chosen a quiet camera. And demonstrated the M2's (lack of) shutter sound. They simply had not heard it at all - not even through the soundman's mikes.

The director said, "Man, that was really thoughtful of you!" Made me feel really good - and made me cringe every time I remembered that encounter, while shooting with the M8/M9s (even in "discreet mode"). The M10 was like coming home.

[mujk]

On 4/3/2019 at 8:54 AM, adan said:

Pretty simple, really. The picture below was made with an M10 and 135mm lens at f/4 - at ISO 10000.

I have adjusted the right side to approximate how an M9 image, at max ISO of 2500, then underexposed 2 stops to reach effective ISO 10000, would have looked, once the brightness was corrected. Noise, banding, loss of dynamic range, etc.. I used an M9 happily for 7 years - but I know its limitations... realistically, the M9 could not have taken this picture.

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!

Of course, I could have used a 90 f/2.0 at ISO 2500, but then I would have captured a lot of excess background, and had to crop. And the noise would still have been messier than the M10 at 10000.

The quieter shutter certainly helps in concert situations, and (as anyone knows whose windows shake and rattle when it thunders), noise = vibration.

The M10 VF/RF focuses long or fast lenses a bit more reliably.

I find the extra 6 Mpixels to not make much difference, though.

Fully agree. In good lighting conditions both produce equally good results.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Nordvik]

M10 is everything I ever wanted from a digital M. It is as thin as my first M, an M3. No video button, I hate videos. Better viewfinder, and better rangefinder. It looks good, something I could not say about M (240).

[Nordvik]

In July 2016 I had cleaned my E30 BMW and a kid came on a bicycle and asked for a price for the car. I had a few beers and said a price. Found it amusing that a 17 year old kid was interested in an old car. But the kid kept on asking about the car. During the winter I was asking my self what other car do I want? I could not find any.

Then in early 2017 the M10 came. The kid kept on aking about the car. So I looked at the car versus a digital camera that will eventually be worthless in a few years. I went with the camera.

The reason for I bought a M10 is for as I said in the other post. Thinner, no video, like my old M3.

 

Still miss my E30. First picture is from later that day the kid came by (2308, it is midsummer). The second picture is from the day after. It is my last picture of that car.

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!