Why so much love for M10?

[Flyer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a very recent owner of an M10 I personally found it incredibly difficult after years with mirrorless and DSLR's. Do get me wrong I went into the purchase with my eyes wide open so it was let's say an error of judgment on my behalf, I have yesterday returned the M10. 

My main problem was accurate focusing, however I don't appear to be alone when it comes to the usability of the M series. 

This is Not bashing Leica, quit the opposite I want to really understand from a users perspective how to appreciate what the M10 can actually do and more importantly how we become more engaged. 

Like many I suppose I wanted to enter the world of Leica for the pure pleasure that it can provide both emotionally and quality. However although I obviously didn't give it enough time, there just seemed to be too many compromises. I suffer from some astigmatism and felt left frustrated by the rangefinder experience not being able to get sharp focus everytime. 

In a world when there are so may aids to enable you to maximise your ability to capture a fleeting moment, that them series can be seen as a frustrating experience. 

I notice many photographs have both an M and say an SL, maybe expecting an M10 to cover all bases was a unrealistic ambition, and some people are willing to accept the imperfections of the rangefinder system in order to engage in the experience of nostalgia? 

I am extremely disappointed at having to return the M10, I even bought the Visoflex to enable me to use focus peaking but maybe due to user error I got mixed results. 

Thanks in advance 

 

[lohthx1r]

Totally understand your sentiment, I was in your situation and found that the use cases for M camera is getting lesser and lesser after I get a Q2 and SL2.

My major challenge is the focusing of a rangefinder system as my eyes is not getting younger.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[tom.w.bn]

How much time did you spend with the M10? I remember back then that I needed many months until I was confident focussing correctly. And it took many month more until I could do this fast. 

[M9reno]

I have a friend who sounds a lot like you.  In frustration with the M rangefinder, he sold me his camera.  A few months later he decided to give it another try, and bought another one.

After several of these cycles he has now sold me three M cameras - an M3, an M4, and an M9-P!  😅

I know that his main source of frustration is missing precise focus with a rangefinder, especially in less than ideal lighting conditions like dark woods with strong backlighting, a problem compounded in his case by late middle-age eyesight.

The reason why he keeps selling (and buying) and I keep buying (but never selling) is two sides of the same coin:  the simplicity and control of M rangefinder focusing is unparalleled, but these features come at a price, namely the risk of user error.  Note: nostalgia does not come into this.

An M can be incredibly pleasurable, or incredibly frustrating, depending on how you approach this particular trade-off.  It’s ultimately a personal thing.

Disappointment can be minimised by anticipating where an M works best for you, and where it doesn’t.  So, yes, having a backup camera that complements an M well, is part of the answer. It could be a CL or an SL.

 

[hteasley]

It's not for everyone. A driver for me in going to rangefinders was my dissatisfaction with AF on my DSLR, and feeling a strong need to shoot manual focus. Rangefinders are the best manual focus cameras, in my opinion. If that's not an element of how you want to shoot, it's a hard transition.

After years, i generally find i have a higher percentage of in focus shots from my M than i do from my AF cameras. But I'm super conscious of pre-focusing, bring aware of my aperture depth of field, and setting my shot up for success early. It's how i want to shoot. Not everyone wants to shoot like i do.

Shoot what you want. Photography should be enjoyable.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

The M rangefinder system is very reliant on good contrast discrimination in your vision. If you have something like astigmatism, that will make it much harder to use. I have terrible vision without contacts, but my eyes are easy to correct to a high level. I had always wondered about why I seemed to have such an easy time focusing manual cameras, where a number of my colleagues and friends did not. In talking to the optician, I realized that this was largely luck of the draw...it does not depend only on whether or not you have good vision, but the individual quirks of your vision, the shape of your eye and so on. For me, the M is quicker and easier to focus than DSLR´s, as it is a simple test of discrimination....the focus is either in or out, and my eyes see that pretty clearly. With optical viewfinders and EVFs I am slower as I rack back and forth many times trying to find the absolute peak of contrast.

In any case, I think the main point here is that people differ, and different kinds of focusing systems will suit different people. If the RF works for your eyes, it is quick and intuitive to use with little training. Especially within its limits...it is not a good system choice if you want to shoot everything wide open, especially longer lenses. But for wide angles and up to about 75mm, it is quick and simple for the people for whom it suits.

[benqui]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I see our problems and of course your statement is no Leica bashing at all: you pay a lot of money and you expect sharp photos. Tom is right, at the beginning you need time and a lot of experience to nail the focus (if you do not have medical problems with your eyes and your rangefinder and/or lenses are working properly). If you are used to the rangefinder, it works very reliable. I can never get sharp images with a manual DSLR, everybody is different. But if you did not succeed with the M10, maybe RF cameras just do not fit to you. Maybe a SL would be a better chioce (and you can keep your M lenses)

Which lens did you use? Were your shots wide open?

[lohthx1r]

12 minutes ago, tom.w.bn said:

How much time did you spend with the M10? I remember back then that I needed many months until I was confident focussing correctly. And it took many month more until I could do this fast. 

Yes, many months since I purchase the original M10 more than 2 years ago. I often need to ask my 6 years old to stand still while I line up the image and it is certainly not ideal. I understand fully this is only my situation but as others point out, I miss many shots while shooting in the dark and subjects without visible vertical lines.

 

I truly enjoy the compactness of M10 and I don’t regret owning one. But it is definitely less practical than Q2 and SL2.

[evikne]

I am sorry for your decision to return your M10. I hope it wasn't a hasty assessment.

I was a loyal Canon user for many years, but I was always very curious of the Leica M system. Once I got the opportunity to buy a cheap M9, I jumped at the offer. Although I was charmed, there was no love at first sight, so I put it out for sale after a few weeks. However, I didn't manage to sell it as fast as I wanted, so I decided to keep it a little more. And imperceptibly I became more and more addicted to this camera!

A few days after the M10 was launched, I was unexpectedly awarded a large sum of money (in fact exactly the equivalent of the price of a new M10), so I ordered one, and now I've become a full time Leica user.

I think the reason why Leica suits me so well, is that I didn't need to change my photography technique very much. Because my style has always involved shallow depth of field and selective focus, I always used only the middle AF point and recomposed with my Canon gear, just as I do now with the RF.

The main difference is of course that one have to focus manually, and I understand that this can be a problem if your vision isn't optimal.

[Viv]

I have no experience of the M10, but I had no difficulty with manual focus using the M9.

I was less happy with the inconsistent white balance of the M9, but that is a different topic.

[Mikep996]

TBH, I can't come up with a single reason to buy a Leica if the production of a photograph is the sole reason to buy a camera.  Having used Leicas for years (and Canons, and Nikons, and Pentax's, and Olympus).  I could not say that any one of them produced a better photo than the other.  As is often noted, the photographer makes a great image, the camera just records it so, IMO, camera selection depends on which camera you most enjoy using for the type of picture-taking that you do. 

In my case, the Leica M10 is that camera.  BUT, if I had trouble focusing it, the Leica M would drop from the most enjoyable camera to a totally non-usable camera that I would never consider.  If/when I can no longer focus the M, a Q looks interesting...

Edited July 23, 2020 by Mikep996

[Guest]

I love using an M, but have largely given up trying to focus the high resolution digital Ms (I still occasionally use my M8.2), using an SL2 and Q2 instead. But ... film. For me it's perfect for an M, less critical on focus, with a unique look I can't easily get with digital. I love my M-A!

[Stuart Richardson]

The quality of images made by practically any professional camera now were unimaginable even 15 years ago. In the early days of the M, it was unmatched in its ability to provide high quality images in low light in a discreet package. Now a stabilized mirrorless camera with a 1.4 lens might go to ISO 409,600... The usage case for the M has changed in the digital era. My point is that more than ever, the camera to use is the one that you feel most comfortable using. Most cameras now will give excellent results if you put an appropriate lens on them. People tend to follow the specs and minimize the actual user experience. I think for most people, the user experience is more important to whether you take good pictures than the camera specs.

The M offers a very specific and, to many, desirable user experience. If you like taking pictures without a lot of help from technology, it is easier to get that feeling from the M10 than for example, a Sony A7 series camera. What you give up in features, you gain in a streamlined user experience: a clear finder with minimal distractions, few buttons and settings, mostly small and very good fast lenses. If you like using one, it is not really anything to be proud of,  and likewise you should not be ashamed for not liking one. I love manual cameras (especially large format view cameras), on the other hand, I want absolutely nothing to do with a manual transmission in a car. Leica marketing likes to sell the M as being some sort of "test" to show that someone is a true photographer, but it is a bit of nonsense. Some photographers like to control every aspect of the camera to get the picture perfect. Other equally talented photographers could not care less about such things and just let the camera do as much as possible. Everyone needs to gravitate towards their own needs.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Stuart Richardson

[Flyer]

Thank you for all your comments and for not flaming me!!!

The issue for me is I so much wanted to "own" a Leica and the M10 just felt right and I felt more connected with the photographing process and I had hoped it would slow me down and make me more deliberate about my photography. I have myself to blame as I didn't give the camera enough of a chance, however it was a used model and I only had 7 days to return. I didn't want to over use it as that would be unfair and so I only practiced with a few shots in the garden, hardly an appropriate amount of usage.

I love the form factor and the heft etc, but for me it would be an additional rather than an only camera and I simply can't afford to have that luxury.

The Q2 would be too limiting with a fixed lens, and the SL is just too big.

I guess a compromise would be the CL but when you hold it compared to an M it just doesn't give you that Junoesque.

[TomB_tx]

I had the opposite reaction: I've used Leica M cameras along with SLRs for over 50 years, and a few years ago tried a DLSR. I couldn't stand it. Compared to a good old SLR, the VF was like looking down a tunnel, and was terrible for judging the sharpness of the subject. Autofocus seldom focused on where I would have selected. Even if autofocus and I agreed, I hated using it, as it meant turning over control of a most important aspect of photography. 

So I no longer have any autofocus cameras. I find the M rangefinder the fastest and most precise way to focus lenses up to 90mm (95% of my pictures). For longer I now use a mirrorless with my old manual focus lenses.

I know autofocus has improved greatly in the last few years, but for an old photographer manual focus is so easy and natural, why bother?

[Jeff S]

21 minutes ago, Flyer said:

Thank you for all your comments and for not flaming me!!!

The issue for me is I so much wanted to "own" a Leica and the M10 just felt right and I felt more connected with the photographing process and I had hoped it would slow me down and make me more deliberate about my photography. I have myself to blame as I didn't give the camera enough of a chance, however it was a used model and I only had 7 days to return. I didn't want to over use it as that would be unfair and so I only practiced with a few shots in the garden, hardly an appropriate amount of usage.

I love the form factor and the heft etc, but for me it would be an additional rather than an only camera and I simply can't afford to have that luxury.

The Q2 would be too limiting with a fixed lens, and the SL is just too big.

I guess a compromise would be the CL but when you hold it compared to an M it just doesn't give you that Junoesque.

Rule #1 with using the RF. Make sure your eyes are corrected for astigmatism and/or distance (focus patch is set to 2m virtual distance). Even with glasses, a diopter can be useful, especially with aging eyes.  I found that adding a +.5 diopter, besides my glasses, optimized my focus ability.  This is easily tested.

Rule #2... Use LV (on tripod) to be sure the RF (and lens) ate properly calibrated.  Especially after buying used.

Failure to follow these steps can lead to frustration and possibly wrong conclusions.  But even then, the RF isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.  I’ll continue using an M (for 35 years so far) as long as my eyes permit.

Jeff

[Gateway77]

Hi Flyer

I also understand where you're coming from - it can be a very frustrating experience and was for me at the beginning of my M10-P ownership.

This was improved hugely after I sent the camera back to have the focusing checked.  Turned out it was back-focusing and this was part of the issue causing me the frustration - as I had assumed it was me getting it wrong.  If it's not late - this is worth investigating!

My camera was new, straight out of the box so I was fairly shocked it could be inaccurate -  Quality control was not ever going to be an issue in this price range - but whatever, they sorted out out fairly quickly so no point in dwelling on that.  I think this is a reasonably common problem.

When this was fixed, focusing naturally became easier but it was nothing like using my other gear and never as satisfying as looking though a good EVF.

However - once I stopped looking for the clarity of the view finder image and started to look at the actual image in front of the camera I think I began to see a whole new way of looking at things.  

Using zone focusing and looking for great moments rather than obsessing on getting super sharp pin point images at wide open Apertures also helped re-train my eyes with a camera.  I hasten to add that this has been a long process and I'm no where near proficient - but it's an enjoyable learning curve with occasional success or massive disappointment.

When I'm using my X-pro 3 (long time Fuji fan) or my Q2 I love the clarity and precision but Im now somewhat over-whelmed by the amount of distracting information which can really get in the way of seeing the image.

Lastly - I would add that despite the amazing resolution of the Q2 or my joy in Fuji jpegs - there is something in the Leica files that is bewitching.  I can't explain it better than that, I couldn't measure it or value it in financial terms.  I couldn't argue it's better than any Sony, Canon or Nikon.  But I look at some of my shots and just love the feel.

At the end of the day - I don't earn my living out of photography, it's just a passion.  Some cameras are just tools my Canon 5D was just that - brilliant but just a tool.  My Leica is a something else, I don't really need it and can afford less because of CV19 - but even so it's now become just something gorgeous to hold and use, and to consider what I'm doing with it.  And  occasionally I get an image that gives me great satisfaction.

Wishing you joy with whatever camera is in your hands.

 

[onasj]

Part of the allure of shooting with the M system is the full control it offers and yes, the challenge.  Autofocus can work well but generally requires much larger lenses for the same optical capability and/or a smaller sensor.  The M system lenses are superb (on just about any 35-mm camera!) and of course the form and beauty of the M cameras and lenses are also outstanding.  It does take a lot of practice and patience, and requires good eyesight, but under most shooting conditions my hit rate is not worse using an M camera than using a state-of-the-art autofocusing camera such as the Sony A7rIV—it's just that I shoot much slower with the M camera, which itself can be a positive—more time to think about subject and composition, and fewer redundant photos to sift through at the end.

For example, here are a few NBA games I shot with the M10/M10-P/M10-M: 

https://leicarumors.com/2020/04/19/shooting-an-nba-game-with-the-leica-m10-monochrom-camera.aspx/

https://leicarumors.com/2018/05/12/shooting-an-nba-basketball-game-with-the-leica-m10-camera-and-leica-apo-telyt-m-135mm-f-3-4-lens-part-2.aspx/

https://leicarumors.com/2018/04/15/shooting-an-nba-basketball-game-with-the-leica-m10-camera-and-leica-apo-telyt-m-135mm-f-3-4-lens.aspx/

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by onasj

[rivi1969]

4 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

TBH, I can't come up with a single reason to buy a Leica if the production of a photograph is the sole reason to buy a camera.  Having used Leicas for years (and Canons, and Nikons, and Pentax's, and Olympus).  I could not say that any one of them produced a better photo than the other.  As is often noted, the photographer makes a great image, the camera just records it so, IMO, camera selection depends on which camera you most enjoy using for the type of picture-taking that you do. 

In my case, the Leica M10 is that camera.  BUT, if I had trouble focusing it, the Leica M would drop from the most enjoyable camera to a totally non-usable camera that I would never consider.  If/when I can no longer focus the M, a Q looks interesting...

Correct. It all depends, in my case it is impossible to capture good pictures of my 3 dogs with either my M8 or M9, (unless they are asleep!) so those cameras are reserved for when I travel with my wife. For anything else my Fuji XT3 is incredibly fast to operate and with its little primes it is able to deliver great IQ. Agree, a Q might look interesting too.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

I would say this basic complaint about Leica Ms (and focusing in particular) sounds to me like:

"Why doesn't this gymnasium provide forklifts to raise the weights?" Or "Why doesn't this golf course make the holes a meter in diameter - with maybe laser-guided clubs to improve accuracy?"

And the answer, of course, is that the goal of lifting weights or hitting a golf shot is to develop, train, and use one's personal abilities. And keep them trained and effective as long as one can. And if one really excels at doing that, one just might be able to better defend oneself, or enter the history books, or acquire an income.

The more one exercises or "trains" one's body cells (and that includes Poirot's "little gray" nerve cells of the eye and brain, as well as muscle cells), the better they perform, and the longer they perform, and the better they can compensate for the debilities of age. Especially in the brain, where "training" generally results in more neuronal connections, and thus better "thinking" in all kinds of pursuits.

A Leica M is like that, except that one actually gets immediate practical results (photographs) along with the sweaty exercise.

Beethoven started going deaf at the age of 26. By the age of 44 he was totally deaf. Yet at 54 he premiered the 9th Symphony (Ode to Joy). How did he do that? Because he had practiced music - hard - for 49 years, and understood his instruments and medium so well he no longer had to hear it, anywhere except in his mind.

https://www.classicfm.com/composers/beethoven/guides/deaf-hearing-loss-composing/

When I came to Leica 19 years ago, it was almost entirely for the rangefinder focusing. I found it very easy to work with - because I had about 30 years of constant ability-training with split-image SLR screens (I had no interest in AF - just as a weightlifter has no interest in forklifts). Now that I have a touch of glaucoma and macular degeneration - I still find an RF the most effective and easy way to create photographs. Snap two images together - *click*

That's not nostalgia. It's just the result of hard work and excercising my skills.

Magazine ad, ca. 1972. As accurate now as it was then.

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!

Edited July 23, 2020 by adan