Jump to content

M240/ M10


UltraDan

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Question to those that have used or have both of the above cameras - is there much IQ difference between the two? I'm guessing that the M10 just has slightly better ISO performance? 
 

looking at both of these and struggling to find a reason to pay the extra for the M10 other than it's the latest and greatest. 
 

thanks

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use M10 and some M240 family along for some years now.

When I mix the pictures, I can't tell which is which M with same lens in use.

In my view, with same lens the RAW results are mostly the same (to 3200 ISO), so I use them without any doubt on the results.

For me, if the results are the most important part ( exclusion "practical", feeling, etc.), I just use one of them.

 

Practical, feelings are another things.

- M240 family can be more practical when battery life is in the equation, ( M-D 262 can have about 10 times M10's autonomy) or carry a set of batteries for M10

- M10 is thinner (if one is sensible to film M size) and with EVF is more usable (if lesser battery life) than M240+EVF longer black-out/time parallax

- the M10's VF is marginally "better", but with time I see nothing to complain with the M240 family very nice VF

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

I use M10 and some M240 family along for some years now.

When I mix the pictures, I can't tell which is which M with same lens in use.

In my view, with same lens the RAW results are mostly the same (to 3200 ISO), so I use them without any doubt on the results.

For me, if the results are the most important part ( exclusion "practical", feeling, etc.), I just use one of them.

 

Practical, feelings are another things.

- M240 family can be more practical when battery life is in the equation, ( M-D 262 can have about 10 times M10's autonomy) or carry a set of batteries for M10

- M10 is thinner (if one is sensible to film M size) and with EVF is more usable (if lesser battery life) than M240+EVF longer black-out/time parallax

- the M10's VF is marginally "better", but with time I see nothing to complain with the M240 family very nice VF

 

Thanks for this interesting appraisal, I've just purchased an M240 today and look forward to receiving and using it. I am under no illusions that the IQ will blow me away as I have had two Sony A7iii's that are superb and I have also a 5D Mk 2 that I expect the M240 to be similar to in terms of performance. 👍🏻😀

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When it was launched in 2012 the M240 was real leap in so many areas in relation to its predecessor the venerable M9.  Only element that let it down was EVF, which was already obsolete at launch.  I have used M240 till i replaced it with SL601, now also sold, replaced by non-Leica Mirrorless.   M10 with 24Mp improves very little, over the M240.  ISO improvement of one to one and half stop is to be expected with next generation sensor. Battery performance and video functionality was sacrificed to achieve thinner body.  External ISO dial in place of film rewind is marketing gimmick.  Even the current EVF does not provide major improvement over the EVF of the M240 era, hey ho it is RF camera.

The latest 40MP sensor in the latest M10R and M10M is no doubt good sensor, but it is here primarily to keep up with Mirrorless.  The RF camera relying solely on Optical focus and finder, except for minority of skilful users, is hitting the ceiling what is possible if achieving maximum quality at max F stop with superb M lenses is to be achieved.  

I think there is a still strong argument in 2020 to consider M240 and derivatives.

I still use M246, the Monochrome younger brother of the M240, except for the poor EVF is still brilliant camera today.

Edited by mmradman
Edit in BOLD
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, UltraDan said:

Thanks for this interesting appraisal, I've just purchased an M240 today and look forward to receiving and using it. I am under no illusions that the IQ will blow me away as I have had two Sony A7iii's that are superb and I have also a 5D Mk 2 that I expect the M240 to be similar to in terms of performance. 👍🏻😀

I came exactly from the same alley - shooting with Canon 5D MkII until 2014 (still have the camera though) and then adding the Sony A7R which I am still using mostly with manual focus lenses. This was also my first Leica experience - with a lens before I got the camera, the 50/2 Summicron-M vers. V. Then starting again with film back in 2015 and getting my first film M (Leica M6) which was followed later with other M and LTMs. Similar to you I had some thoughts to get the M 10, but it was still too expensive, and the M 240 offers other benefits, too. Found a very good deal for a M-E 240 a month ago and enjoy this camera since. I just published a review on my blog about the M-E 240:

M-E 240 Review

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have an M240 (I skipped to the M10 from the M9). However, two differences I can think of at the high ISO performance -- 3200 is no problem for my M10 or even 6400 and I can go up even further in black and white (or even color sometimes). My M9 was maybe 800 max. I suspect the 240 is in between these two. The second is that both the 240 and the M10 have life view but use different clip on EVFs. Naturally it's also thinner (the M10) but I never saw that as a big deal. The on/off switch for the M10 makes me think it's on when it's off and vice versa -- it's kind of weird. And the M10 has an ISO dial on top to set the ISO (which I can't say enough positive things about).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, carbon_dragon said:

I don't have an M240 (I skipped to the M10 from the M9). However, two differences I can think of at the high ISO performance -- 3200 is no problem for my M10 or even 6400 and I can go up even further in black and white (or even color sometimes). My M9 was maybe 800 max. I suspect the 240 is in between these two. The second is that both the 240 and the M10 have life view but use different clip on EVFs. Naturally it's also thinner (the M10) but I never saw that as a big deal. The on/off switch for the M10 makes me think it's on when it's off and vice versa -- it's kind of weird. And the M10 has an ISO dial on top to set the ISO (which I can't say enough positive things about).

True. The M 240 is my first digital Leica, and I can confirm that it is best usable between ISO 100 to 3200 as max. I knew from my past > 15 years working with digital cameras that I rarely ever go above ISO 1600 with my style. Sure, I would take it as option if I got it in a camera like the M 10, but it didn't justify the price difference for me. What I personally wish is more low ISO performance, going down to ISO 50. This would be ideal for me to handle long exposures in combination with landscape photography. But so far I manage by using a 3-stop ND filter instead when needed for this purpose. I wrote about the EVFs in my blog - yes, the M 10 requires a new EVF purely Leica based which is also a lot more expensive. I can use the Olympus VF-2 on my M 240 which I bought in EX condition online for $160. The ISO wheel on the M 10 is a nice-to-have feature - but I also got quickly used to change the ISO on the display of the M 240. No idea why Leica made the user to hold the ISO button while dialing in the ISO number at the same time, but after getting used to it, it's simple. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply's, honestly having shot an A7iii with incredible high iso I came to realise that about 5% of my shots were ata a higher iso than 2000, I just don't use it so I'm hoping this will be a fine choice. I recently (late last year) shot in New York, did a lot of night stuff and the 5Dmk2 with a sigma art 1.4 did a fine job and I didn't feel I lost any shots I wanted to iso performance. In general if shooting in low light there is a way around it usually I have found either tripod or slow handheld. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot with both professionally (own the M240).
Short answer: Yes, the M10 is better in subtle details like high ISO (I go up to 1600 with M240 but could easily go to 3200 with M10), bigger viewfinder, dedicated ISO dial, bigger cache, better UI and cooler back buttons. As far as my M240 I like the size better, it has better battery life and is customized by Leica for me.
Long answer: read all the posts here.

I would jump to M10 for a good price at the first opportunity.

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, UltraDan said:

Thanks for the reply's, honestly having shot an A7iii with incredible high iso I came to realise that about 5% of my shots were ata a higher iso than 2000, I just don't use it so I'm hoping this will be a fine choice. I recently (late last year) shot in New York, did a lot of night stuff and the 5Dmk2 with a sigma art 1.4 did a fine job and I didn't feel I lost any shots I wanted to iso performance. In general if shooting in low light there is a way around it usually I have found either tripod or slow handheld. 

Then maybe you should go for the M10. The high ISO performance is GREAT for us Leica M users, and probably adequate for A7 shooters. The Leica Q and Q2 is another option though you have a fixed 28mm lens (not my personal choice in a focal length). And that ISO dial is really nice. The Visoflex 020 EVF is pretty good, probably not up to Sony standards but decent, used it this weekend. Another possible option could be a Leica CL -- not full frame but probably has better high ISO performance than the earlier Ms and interchangeable lenses. And you can use M lenses with an adapter. 

This is my M10 struggling with low ISO at 6400. It's still usable at 6400 but this tends to be my upper limit with this camera. Note the low depth of field, this was the 35/2 Summicron ASPH at f/2.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Al Brown said:

I shoot with both professionally (own the M240).
Short answer: Yes, the M10 is better in subtle details like high ISO (I go up to 1600 with M240 but could easily go to 3200 with M10), bigger viewfinder, dedicated ISO dial, bigger cache, better UI and cooler back buttons. As far as my M240 I like the size better, it has better battery life and is customized by Leica for me.
Long answer: read all the posts here.

I would jump to M10 for a good price at the first opportunity.

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!

Problem is the M10 is twice the price of the M240 currently (used) and as I say - I'm hardly a low light shooter. Just can't see its worth it at the current price levels, yet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2020 at 7:57 PM, UltraDan said:

Problem is the M10 is twice the price of the M240 currently (used) and as I say - I'm hardly a low light shooter. Just can't see its worth it at the current price levels, yet. 

A year ago I needed a new camera for my company (and for that I needed to look for new cameras from regular suppliers), and was in almost the same situation. Choose between a new M-E 240 for about €4000 or a new M10 for about €6000.

Difficult choice, with each having its own pros and cons (better ISO being biggest plus for M10, and better battery life being biggest plus for M240). 

In the end I got the M-E 240 and saved €2000 that I could use as additional funds for my lens purchase. This allowed me to go for the latest Leica Summicron 35/2 ASPH over the cheaper Summarit 35/2,4 ASPH, and still have spare money/budget to also purchase a Zeiss Planar T* 2/50 ZM and a Leica SF40 flash.

I am extremely happy with my camera (if I really need to take photos in really low light situations, I have several other non-M cameras that easily beat the M10 in high ISO performance). For me personally it was the right decision to put less money on the camera, and more on the optics, but there is nothing right or wrong here. 

Can not tell you how you should decide. They are both great digital RF cameras! :)

Edited by martinot
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...