Need a thinner camera than M246! M10M or M9M?

[dchen42]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Everyone!

I got into the M's film system a few years ago and then last year decided to venture into the monochrom digital family. I got myself a M246, while I really appreciate just about everything about the camera, one thing I can't get over with is how thick, bulky it is. It does not feel like the Leica film Ms I used to know at all. I know it's only a few mms of difference but it feels so much thicker in hand and I often find myself not wanting to hold it for too long.

So I think I'm presented with two options: M10 Monochrom or M9 Monochrom. I want to go with M10 M because it's newer but I also noticed from the specs that M9 M is even thinner (and of course cheaper). I want someone who has experience with handling both cameras to enlighten me on how the two cameras feel in hand and which one is closer to the thin, film Leica experience. I know not a lot of people complain about M240 or M246's weight considering how good it is. But for me, one of the most important advantage of a Leica M is its size. M246 simply does not feel like a "rangefinder".

[jaapv]

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!

The M9 series is just 0.5 mm less thick than the M246 and a lot thicker than the M10/M11.  I don't know  what gain you would expect there. The M10/M11 is approximately  the same dimensions as a film M.  Don't be fooled by specifications. The dimensions include things like the thumb rest and lens mount and tell you nothing about the actual thickness of the body The M9 has no thumbrest so it specifies 5 mm more thin than cameras with such an appendage  

[Jeff S]

What Jaap said.  I own both the M(9) Monochrom and M10 Monochrom.  The latter is slimmer, more like a film M. But that’s hardly the only distinguishing characteristic of the M10 platform compared to the older M9… CMOS vs CCD, more robust build (and no sensor corrosion issues), better weather sealing, 2m vs 1m optimized frame lines, quieter operation, higher resolution and better high ISO performance, larger and higher magnification VF with better eye relief, etc.  But the M9M files are terrific, it provides a RAW histogram (unlike the M10M) and is far less expensive (even with a new sensor with Leica warranty). 

Jeff

[johnwolf]

I hear you on the M246 thickness. On paper it's not much; in hand it feels substantial. But it's quite a price jump.  I guess one way to look at it is about $1000 per ml. Too much for me.

I go back and forth between an M6 and M246. But I think of them as completely different systems and am not expecting the same shooting experience. Although that would be nice.

John

Edited May 6, 2022 by johnwolf

[dchen42]

Thank you Jaapv for the very clear comparison graphs. The M9M's spec is clearly deceptive with its claimed thickness of only 37mm.

[jaapv]

No, the M 246 spec is deceptive. Without the thumb grip/wheel the body thickness is 37,5 mm I shot both cameras side by side for years and in my hands they felt exactly the same. The perception of aome users comes from a slight difference in weight distribution and handling due to the thumbrest. The  246 can feel a bit more chunky and it does not help that Leica does not specify the body thickness of the 240 series. Their specification is the box that fits the camera . Put them together bottom to bottom and you’ll see. Your 246 is 37,5 mm thick, but the gripping part is exactly the same thickness as the M9 , as the extra 0.5 comes from a different LCD and button assembly. 

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 5/5/2022 at 6:51 AM, dchen42 said:

Hi Everyone!

I got into the M's film system a few years ago and then last year decided to venture into the monochrom digital family. I got myself a M246, while I really appreciate just about everything about the camera, one thing I can't get over with is how thick, bulky it is. It does not feel like the Leica film Ms I used to know at all. I know it's only a few mms of difference but it feels so much thicker in hand and I often find myself not wanting to hold it for too long.

So I think I'm presented with two options: M10 Monochrom or M9 Monochrom. I want to go with M10 M because it's newer but I also noticed from the specs that M9 M is even thinner (and of course cheaper). I want someone who has experience with handling both cameras to enlighten me on how the two cameras feel in hand and which one is closer to the thin, film Leica experience. I know not a lot of people complain about M240 or M246's weight considering how good it is. But for me, one of the most important advantage of a Leica M is its size. M246 simply does not feel like a "rangefinder".

I've owned and used M series film cameras for the better part of a half century. I've also owned and used extensively M9, M-P240, M-D262 in turn since 2012, and just acquired the M10-M. The M9 and M240 series feel pretty darn similar to me, and both are bit thicker than the M4-2 (which I still have and use). The case for the M9 fits the M240 just fine except for where various control bits are located, which necessitates a different case. The M-D 262, due to the lack of LCD display and minimalistic controls, felt the most similar to the M4-2 despite the incremental increase in size and weight—because without the LCD and the control buttons, where your hands fall on the body feels very much the same. 

A lot of the M240 additional weight comes from having a larger battery than either the M9 or M10/11 ... That's a trade-off that I'm perfectly comfortable with. 

I just received the M10-M. My first comparison was to take it out and handle the body next to the M4-2. Leica has done a good job of making the body just slightly thinner than the M9/M240/M262 series, but the M4-2 is still thinner. Accepting that I wanted the LCD on the M10-M for use with Live View and such, it is automatically more similar in feel to the M9 and M-P240 than M-D262, but that's okay with me. It feels a little lighter than either of those to in my hands ... a small difference. 

First impressions: It feels like a Leica M, like all my Leica Ms have felt. The viewfinder is lovely, I like the simplified control/menu structure compared to the prior digital Ms: I look forward to putting it to use and learning how to get the most out of it. 

G

"Equipment is transitory. Photographs endure."

Edited May 6, 2022 by ramarren
correction

[a.noctilux]

Many years ago, I wanted a thinner digital M, having some more experiences with them, thick or thin, I don't bother anymore.

comparing the bases of my then Leica Ms

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!

 

I know that "things" at rear appeared to explain the feeling of thicker bodies,

now with M-D clean rear part, this feeling disappeared.

[jaapv]

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!

I would call the differences between M6 and M9 substantial. (iii f for reference) 

 

 

[Herr Barnack]

3.5mm sounds insignificant, but it is noticeable in the hand.  It doesn't "ruin" the M240 platform, but it is a bit annoying. 

As an M-P 240 and M10M owner, I prefer the M10M platform for its size, feel and its external ISO wheel. 

I would recommend the M10M over the M246.  The advantages go well beyond the 3.5mm thinner body and the ISO wheel on the top plate.

[jaapv]

But I like the images from the M9M better, warts and all  

[pippy]

Out of curiosity I've just taken some body-width readings, using a digital caliper, of three types of M body; an M2; an M Monochrom (M9M/MM) and an M-D Typ-262.

The areas measured were (a) Base-plate; (b) Mid-section and (c) Top-plate. For the mid-section measurements I included those parts which fall under my hand when holding the cameras so for the M2 this included the film-door and for the Monochrom it included the screen. There is nothing extraneous on the M-D; the ISO dial is completely out of the way and I don't grip using the thumbwheel carbuncle.

M2 : (a) 32.4mm; (b) 34.0mm; (c) 33.5mm.

MM : (a) 35.8mm; (b) 40.0mm; (c) 37.0mm.

M-D : (a) 36.8mm; (b) 36.8mm; (c) 38.0mm.

A very mixed bag of numbers but a few interesting points here;

As can be seen the M-D has - by 1mm over the MM - the thickest top- and base-plates. However because there isn't anything 'in the way' at the rear the M-D is actually 3.2mm thinner than the MM in most other parts of the camera. From these figures it's easy to see why, in post #7, Ramarren says;

"The M-D 262......felt the most similar to the M4-2 despite the incremental increase in size and weight because without the LCD and the control buttons, where your hands fall on the body feels very much the same."

Philip.

[dchen42]

I would honestly only see the upside of the black M11 switching to aluminum plates to save weight. I appreciate any improvement to make you want to use the camera more. I agree with the saying that the best camera is the one that's with you. 

[jaapv]

I would prefer a modern composite glass-fiber material.

[ellegant]

If I did not want the convenience of using my MacBook Pro to work with my images, I  would  still be shooting with my M4 of which I am the original owner. I gave up darkroom work years ago and not long after gave up trying to find a lab that would decently and relatively inexpensively process my film and return the negatives with a high quality scans on a  CD.  For ten years I have been shooting with an m8.2. Decent enough and I no longer smell of chemicals.

[ramarren]

heh. I took the M10-M and M4-2 out together the other day. I've become so accustomed to the digital bodies, the M4-2 without a case feels too thin. Fit both with a half case, and my hands can barely tell the difference. 

As usual, I haven't processed the M4-2 film just yet, and probably won't get to it for a month. As usual, I've already looked at and selected what's interesting to me from the M10-M on that session.  

I haven't had a darkroom in thirty years. I process film myself, on the kitchen counter, in a daylight loading type tank. Takes about 25 minutes from dry to hanging. My home doesn't smell of photo chemistry. I scan the film with a copy camera setup most of the time, nowadays, although I still also have a Nikon Coolscan V film scanner at my disposal. It's pretty easy to do, just takes a bit of time so I wait until I have enough film to process and spend an afternoon at it, and do the same with scanning. 

G