fotografr Posted March 15, 2021 Share #1 Â Posted March 15, 2021 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) When the M10 was announced, one of the points mentioned in the release was that the body had been slimmed down close to the size of the M7. That was one of the major selling points. I can recall comparing my M10 to my M9M when I had both and the M10 looked noticeably thinner. Today I've had a discussion with another forum member about this and we both researched the body sizes with confusing results. M10Â Â Â 139x39x80mm M9Â Â Â Â Â 139x37x80mm M8Â Â Â Â Â 139x37x80mm It appears from this that the M10 is actually thicker than previous M bodies. Can somebody tell me what we're missing here? Â Update: I think I just got my answer. Believe it or not, the internet was wrong. https://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M10/Details Edited March 15, 2021 by fotografr 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 15, 2021 Posted March 15, 2021 Hi fotografr, Take a look here M10 Body Size. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
david strachan Posted March 16, 2021 Share #2  Posted March 16, 2021 (edited) Hi Brent  It depends where one is measuring of course. I've measured across my M8 top plate and get the same measurement ...does not account though for "protrusions" mount, screen, or buttons. Same measurement across my M-P typ 240 is 38 mm. The link you've quoted, for the M10, is very wrong..and very misleading...i think it's a complete cock-up. ... Edited March 16, 2021 by david strachan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted March 16, 2021 Author Share #3  Posted March 16, 2021 (edited) 38 minutes ago, david strachan said: Hi Brent  It depends where one is measuring of course. I've measured across my M8 top plate and get the same measurement on my M8's...does not account though for "protrusions" mount, screen, or buttons. Same measurement across my M-P typ 240 is 38 mm. The link you've quoted, for the M10, is very wrong..and very misleading...i think it's a complete cock-up. ... So, bottom line is Leica are lying to us? I've just measured my M10-P and it is exactly as stated by Leica, excluding the protrusion for the thumb wheel. Edited March 16, 2021 by fotografr Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david strachan Posted March 16, 2021 Share #4  Posted March 16, 2021 (edited) They wouldn't be the first...everything is a lie with cameras from ISO quality to battery capability, etc, etc. Edited March 16, 2021 by david strachan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted March 16, 2021 Author Share #5  Posted March 16, 2021 2 minutes ago, david strachan said: They wouldn't be the first...everything is a lie with cameras from ISO quality to battery capability, etc, etc. Sounds a bit negative. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david strachan Posted March 16, 2021 Share #6  Posted March 16, 2021 Well you edited one of your posts Brent to completely change the tone of your and therefore, my posts... 😑 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted March 16, 2021 Author Share #7  Posted March 16, 2021 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) 3 minutes ago, david strachan said: Well you edited one of your posts Brent to completely change the tone of your and therefore, my posts... 😑 I edited prior to seeing your post and it had nothing to do with anything you said. Time to relax. The only thing I edited was to add that I had just measured my camera. It took me a couple of minutes to find my ruler. Edited March 16, 2021 by fotografr Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted March 16, 2021 Share #8  Posted March 16, 2021 Not sure where these dimensions are coming from, but the width of the Leica M10 top plate is ~33.5mm as measured. Of course if you factor in protrusions like the thumb rest and lens mount, it would be more. The width makes a difference in handling, for me. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fisheess Posted March 16, 2021 Share #9 Â Posted March 16, 2021 (edited) Didn't they let the lens mount protrude so that the body itself can be thinner (compared to M 240)? Edited March 16, 2021 by fisheess Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted March 16, 2021 Share #10  Posted March 16, 2021 43 minutes ago, fisheess said: Didn't they let the lens mount protrude so that the body itself can be thinner (compared to M 240)? Mount to sensor distance needs to be the same. If the body is thinner, as in the case of the M10, there will be a mount protrusion to compensate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 16, 2021 Share #11 Â Posted March 16, 2021 1 hour ago, rramesh said: Of course if you factor in protrusions like the thumb rest and lens mount, it would be more That is exactly what happens in internet comparisons. Reason that the M240 is said to be "bloated" compared to the M9 - in reality the difference is 0.5 mm-, and the M10 "much thicker" than a film M. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fisheess Posted March 16, 2021 Share #12  Posted March 16, 2021 3 minutes ago, rramesh said: Mount to sensor distance needs to be the same. If the body is thinner, as in the case of the M10, there will be a mount protrusion to compensate. exactly. The 39 mm measurement is probably the complete depth inkl. mount, LED, etc. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 16, 2021 Share #13  Posted March 16, 2021 18 minutes ago, rramesh said: Mount to sensor distance needs to be the same. If the body is thinner, as in the case of the M10, there will be a mount protrusion to compensate. Yes, but the M10 was designed to have the sensor much closer to the camera back than any other digital camera by moving the motherboard to the side. That is the main reason that it is thinner; the sensor is (nearly) in the same position as film was. You can see the unique folded motherboard at the lower righthand side. Only: the LCD sticks out a couple of mm-s    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! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/318978-m10-body-size/?do=findComment&comment=4161753'>More sharing options...
UliWer Posted March 16, 2021 Share #14  Posted March 16, 2021 There are so many ways to measure the „thickness“ of a camera: bottom plate, top cover, which part of the top cover, with or without protruding parts, etc. etc. Leica used different ways, which gave larger numbers to the film bodies than to the digital ones. It seems as if they standardized them now. If one looks at the data sheet for an MP for film, it measures 138*77*38mm, the „official“ measurements by Leica for an M240 are 138.6*80*42., for an M10, 139*80*38.5. To get a realistic image, you better look at the bodies and touch them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted March 16, 2021 Author Share #15  Posted March 16, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, UliWer said: To get a realistic image, you better look at the bodies and touch them. 100% agree. The thickness discussion, as this thread clearly shows, can become pretty academic. The only thickness I care about is the portion of the camera body that I hold in my hand, and that part is thinner on the M10 than any of the digital M predesessors. Edited March 16, 2021 by fotografr Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted March 16, 2021 Author Share #16  Posted March 16, 2021 4 hours ago, rramesh said: Not sure where these dimensions are coming from, but the width of the Leica M10 top plate is ~33.5mm as measured. Of course if you factor in protrusions like the thumb rest and lens mount, it would be more. The width makes a difference in handling, for me. The initial measurements I quoted were obtained by googling, " Leica M10 dimensions," and the same for the M8 and M9. The dimension I consider the most accurate, 33.7mm, is directly from the Leica AG website. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 16, 2021 Share #17  Posted March 16, 2021 We’ve had these same discussions over and over.  Part of the confusion relates to the measuring points, exacerbated by Leica’s own confusing publications, including the operating manual.  Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob L Posted March 16, 2021 Share #18 Â Posted March 16, 2021 The M10 Base plate is almost identical in size and shape to an M6, M6TTL or M7. Height is about the same as the M6TTL or M7. Published dimensions are very often taken from the worst offending appendage (lens mount and thumb rest in this case). Zeiss used to publish lens length as measured with front and rear caps installed?? 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakontil Posted March 16, 2021 Share #19  Posted March 16, 2021 M10-D feels even thinner than M10 due to its lack of screen protrusion 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted March 16, 2021 Author Share #20  Posted March 16, 2021 2 hours ago, Jeff S said: We’ve had these same discussions over and over.  Part of the confusion relates to the measuring points, exacerbated by Leica’s own confusing publications, including the operating manual.  Jeff I had not seen that thread previously. Thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.