M10 Mono: carpe diem or not?

[Kiwimac]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’ve got an opportunity to acquire a BNIB M10M at a very keen price - much less than the M11M. 
 

I’m considering getting it as a companion to my M10R. 
 

It would provide both a backup body when travelling and a unique capture device. 
 

i enjoyed shooting and developing my own B&W fun many decades so now and often (but by no means exclusively) convert colour work to mono in post. 
 

I’ve no particular technical reason to object to converted colour results which seem fine to me (and indeed got me a silver in a national professional competition last year) but there is a certain something about M Mono output that I find beguiling. 
 

I’m interested in views as to whether the M10m is a good and worthwhile buy at about 20% less than the current M11 incarnation. 

[Jeff S]

Should you buy a Monochrom? Which Monochrom should you buy?  Very different questions, but each depends on personal shooting and editing preferences.

I own the M10-R and M10 Monochrom.  Never carry or shoot with them together. A Monochrom offers a unique shooting mindset and experience for me, which would be negated by potential color pic distractions.  But the trade off is not being able to use color channels in PP (Photoshop ‘tricks’ aside). Both are capable of superb, or mediocre, pics and prints - depending on me.

Would I trade either camera for the M11 equivalents? No, regardless of price. But that reflects my priorities and preferences.  And I only buy from trustworthy dealers, once I’m sure about choices, not based on special ‘deals’.

Jeff

Edited June 4 by Jeff S

[Advertisement]

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

[Greenmarine]

Agree with Jeff, shooting color & mono in parallel don't work (... and always have kinda been more a mono guy 😉)

Had the M10 Mono, now got the M11 Mono ... from my POV:

M11 Mono pro's:

• Electronic shutter + lower base ISO -> can shoot all lenses at max. aperture w/o needing to fiddle with ND filters (on in bright light, off in low light)
• Better dynamic range & medium format-esque resolution (close to the Fuji GFX 100S I had!)
• More than double battery life & ability to recharge via USB-C -> no need to carry additional batteries!
• No more base plate (needed 3 hands to change battery on my M10 Mono ...)

Con's:

• 50% higher pixel density needs 1 stop faster shutter speed to prevent hand held motion blur: min speed 1/4xf vs. 1/2xf on M10 Mono
• Have the feeling that M10 Mono grain at high ISO was less obvious -> using max. ISO limit of 12.5 k vs. 20 k on M10 Mono
• Have the feeling the M11 Mono's shutter lag's a bit more than on the M10 Mono, but I gotta dive deeper into that one to verify

Hope this helps, good luck to you & best regards

[Kiwimac]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

Should you buy a Monochrom? Which Monochrom should you buy?  Very different questions, but each depends on personal shooting and editing preferences.

I own the M10-R and M10 Monochrom.  Never carry or shoot with them together. A Monochrom offers a unique shooting mindset and experience for me, which would be negated by potential color pic distractions.  But the trade off is not being able to use color channels in PP (Photoshop ‘tricks’ aside). Both are capable of superb, or mediocre, pics and prints - depending on me.

Would I trade either camera for the M11 equivalents? No, regardless of price. But that reflects my priorities and preferences.  And I only buy from trustworthy dealers, once I’m sure about choices, not based on special ‘deals’.

Jeff

The deal in question is direct from Leica in my country, so worries on that particular score.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I don’t think anyone can tell you if a mono is a good idea. Is a niche within a niche good for you? It is for me. I agree that for most applications there’s advantaged to converting from colour and mostly the advantages of the Monochrom aren’t needed. I do tend to allow MUCH higher ISO’s with the Mono though. High ISO shooting is insane. No need for IBIS, ever on a mono sensor…. But are images on my wall fundamentally better from a Monochrom? No. 

As far as matching an M10R and M10M goes, I think that’s wise. Same resolution. Same EVF. Same batteries and charger. Same accessories. Maybe a different strap so you know what camera you’ve picked up? The IQ of the M10M is extraordinary. So no issues there. The M11 is subtly but noticeably different in use and you do feel it if you have one of each (M10 and M11).

I’m the opposite of the above. I’ll have a M11 on one shoulder and M11M on the other. Kept that from my working days where that was the norm for a wedding shooter. Difference is now I never convert colour files to B&W, if I have the mono with me. Red strap on the colour. Grey on the Monochrom.

Gordon

[Bikie John]

It is a very personal choice. I really like shooting a mono-only camera, others don't see the point. I recently spent a few days on a canal boat which is a pretty high-risk environment (no security, lots of dirty water in close proximity etc.) so I dug a very old Olympus compact rangefinder camera out of mothballs and stuck a roll of black & white film in it. I really enjoyed using it, and it was lovely getting a sheet of negatives back from the lab.

I am not suggesting that a 45 year old basic film camera is the answer to your dilemma! Just pointing out that for some of us the monochrome shooting experience is different and worthwhile. If you are being offered the last M10M in the country for a good price, it might be fairly low risk because if you decide it's not for you after all, it might sell without too much of a loss.

John

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 6/4/2023 at 11:59 AM, Kiwimac said:

I’ve got an opportunity to acquire a BNIB M10M at a very keen price - much less than the M11M. 
I’m considering getting it as a companion to my M10R. 
It would provide both a backup body when travelling and a unique capture device. 
i enjoyed shooting and developing my own B&W fun many decades so now and often (but by no means exclusively) convert colour work to mono in post. 
I’ve no particular technical reason to object to converted colour results which seem fine to me (and indeed got me a silver in a national professional competition last year) but there is a certain something about M Mono output that I find beguiling. 
I’m interested in views as to whether the M10m is a good and worthwhile buy at about 20% less than the current M11 incarnation. 

I bought the M10 Monochrom new in early 2022. Fell in love with it, and quickly realized I wanted the same camera but also capable of color capture instead of my then-current other digital cameras. So I bought the M10-R this year ... and yes, it does exactly what I want. 

I only rarely ever carry both at the same time ... I only ever rarely carry more than one camera at a time at all!  I just don't like to carry that much stuff. I often don't even like to carry a second lens... Whenever I pick up a camera and go shooting, I have specific goals in mind, tailored for whatever camera I'm carrying. 

The M10-M is an excellent complement to the M10-R because everything you have for one works perfectly on the other ... batteries, case, grip, EVF, etc. If you like the way an M10-R feels and works, an M10-M will feel 100% natural and normal to you. 

I haven't even seen an M11 yet. It has impressive specs and lots of changes from the M10 series. Would it be better for my photography, would it pose some advantages...? I do not know. On the other hand, I haven't seen anything about the M10-R or M10-M that is limiting my photography in any substantive way, or making me think "Well, maybe this would work better if I had an M11..."

You have to decide for yourself what you want, what's going to work best for you, etc. For me, I'm truly, really, thoroughly delighted with the M10-M and M10-R. Until I get to a point of wanting something else for whatever reason, they're my go-to digital cameras. 

G

[snooper]

On 6/4/2023 at 8:59 PM, Kiwimac said:

I’m interested in views as to whether the M10m is a good and worthwhile buy at about 20% less than the current M11 incarnation. 

Did exactly the same a couple of months ago. Super deal on a brand new M10M in a Leica store, a camera that I had before the M11.

Sold the M11, bought the M10M, and enjoying the “downgrade” every single day 😁..

Opinion, just opinion: the M10M is the best digital M so far… You can’t be disappointed, go for it.

[Pierre68]

19 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I’m the opposite of the above. I’ll have a M11 on one shoulder and M11M on the other. Kept that from my working days where that was the norm for a wedding shooter. Difference is now I never convert colour files to B&W, if I have the mono with me. Red strap on the colour. Grey on the Monochrom.

I am currently enjoying carrying the M10R and the M10M together with two lenses to share. There are some pictures that scream "color" and some that scream "black and white". So I grab one camera or the other depending on the situation. With the combo I never miss an occasion. And I never have to convert color to black and white. 

I have a second M10R body that I thought I would use together with its sibling with one lens on each camera so I wouldn't have to swap lenses during a shoot. But it never happened because I found having the M10M as a second camera more interesting... So now I am thinking to sell the second M10R...

[Kiwimac]

9 hours ago, ramarren said:

I bought the M10 Monochrom new in early 2022. Fell in love with it, and quickly realized I wanted the same camera but also capable of color capture instead of my then-current other digital cameras. So I bought the M10-R this year ... and yes, it does exactly what I want. 

I only rarely ever carry both at the same time ... I only ever rarely carry more than one camera at a time at all!  I just don't like to carry that much stuff. I often don't even like to carry a second lens... Whenever I pick up a camera and go shooting, I have specific goals in mind, tailored for whatever camera I'm carrying. 

The M10-M is an excellent complement to the M10-R because everything you have for one works perfectly on the other ... batteries, case, grip, EVF, etc. If you like the way an M10-R feels and works, an M10-M will feel 100% natural and normal to you. 

I haven't even seen an M11 yet. It has impressive specs and lots of changes from the M10 series. Would it be better for my photography, would it pose some advantages...? I do not know. On the other hand, I haven't seen anything about the M10-R or M10-M that is limiting my photography in any substantive way, or making me think "Well, maybe this would work better if I had an M11..."

You have to decide for yourself what you want, what's going to work best for you, etc. For me, I'm truly, really, thoroughly delighted with the M10-M and M10-R. Until I get to a point of wanting something else for whatever reason, they're my go-to digital cameras. 

G

The principle advantage (to me) in the M11 series is the faster shutter possible with the electronic option. I was shooting earlier in the week and wanted to use f1.4 for artistic effect but even with an ND filter on the lens, it exceeded what was possible with 4000 max speed.

 

This of course applies to either the M11 or the M11 Mono, which offer up to 1/16,000th with the electronic option - assuming your subject is stationary etc etc.

 

I suppose the additional resolution is also of use especially for landscapes primarily because long glass is not really an M option, so if you want to crop in on a particular part, a 90 or 135 image at 60MP would allow a lot of that.

[ramarren]

8 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

The principle advantage (to me) in the M11 series is the faster shutter possible with the electronic option. I was shooting earlier in the week and wanted to use f1.4 for artistic effect but even with an ND filter on the lens, it exceeded what was possible with 4000 max speed.

This of course applies to either the M11 or the M11 Mono, which offer up to 1/16,000th with the electronic option - assuming your subject is stationary etc etc.

I suppose the additional resolution is also of use especially for landscapes primarily because long glass is not really an M option, so if you want to crop in on a particular part, a 90 or 135 image at 60MP would allow a lot of that.

Hmm. The same EV at ISO 160 @ f/11 @ 1/250 (essentially my rule of thumb for open sunlight day exposure guesstimation) can be achieved at f/1.4 by using any filter with an ND-4x light absorbtion. I have up to ND-10x filters... and you can stack two ND-2x filters too. Of course, having a shutter setting instead of having to fit a filter is much more convenient.  

And I've used up to a Sigma 600mm f/8 reflex lens on my M10-M (through the use of a Nikon F to M-mount adapter) ... If I'm doing landscape work, I'm using a tripod anyway, so using a tripod and the EVF isn't a problem.  

I hear what you're saying, but I haven't found these kinds of exposure-range edge nuisances any bother, so far. The additional resolution of the 60Mpixel sensor might be useful in some circumstances too, but I haven't found it to be a limiting factor either. 

It's not all about me ... but I can only give advice based on my personal experience. Many of my cameras are limited to 1/500 sec and have f/2.8 or slower lenses so perhaps I've just gotten used to working the problems in different ways. 

G

"Equipment is transitory; photographs endure."

[Greenmarine]

On 6/5/2023 at 12:07 AM, Greenmarine said:

Agree with Jeff, shooting color & mono in parallel don't work (... and always have kinda been more a mono guy 😉)

Had the M10 Mono, now got the M11 Mono ... from my POV:

M11 Mono pro's:

• Electronic shutter + lower base ISO -> can shoot all lenses at max. aperture w/o needing to fiddle with ND filters (on in bright light, off in low light)
• Better dynamic range & medium format-esque resolution (close to the Fuji GFX 100S I had!)
• More than double battery life & ability to recharge via USB-C -> no need to carry additional batteries!
• No more base plate (needed 3 hands to change battery on my M10 Mono ...)

Con's:

• 50% higher pixel density needs 1 stop faster shutter speed to prevent hand held motion blur: min speed 1/4xf vs. 1/2xf on M10 Mono
• Have the feeling that M10 Mono grain at high ISO was less obvious -> using max. ISO limit of 12.5 k vs. 20 k on M10 Mono
• Have the feeling the M11 Mono's shutter lag's a bit more than on the M10 Mono, but I gotta dive deeper into that one to verify

Hope this helps, good luck to you & best regards

Just wanted to add that pixel binning (reducing from 60MP to 36 or 18) don’t change the need for faster shutter speed to prevent hand held motion blur, coz the actual pixel sizes remain the same

[Manicouagan1]

For me the M10-M is preferred because I use GPS tagging which is easy using the M10-M Visoflex viewer.  I have had difficulty connecting a cell phone to my cameras (not just Leica's).

[FlashGordonPhotography]

On 6/16/2023 at 3:20 AM, Manicouagan1 said:

For me the M10-M is preferred because I use GPS tagging which is easy using the M10-M Visoflex viewer.  I have had difficulty connecting a cell phone to my cameras (not just Leica's).

This is true but I have decided I will no longer GPS tag any image publicly due to the behaviour of some *instagrammers*. I have reverted to what I did before having inbuilt GPS. I take a photo on my phone and drop those into the same folder as the Leica files. I can always find where I took a Leica shot.

Gordon

[Chaemono]

Am 4.6.2023 um 20:59 schrieb Kiwimac:

I’ve got an opportunity to acquire a BNIB M10M at a very keen price - much less than the M11M. 
 

I’m considering getting it as a companion to my M10R. 
 

It would provide both a backup body when travelling and a unique capture device. 
 

i enjoyed shooting and developing my own B&W fun many decades so now and often (but by no means exclusively) convert colour work to mono in post. 
 

I’ve no particular technical reason to object to converted colour results which seem fine to me (and indeed got me a silver in a national professional competition last year) but there is a certain something about M Mono output that I find beguiling. 
 

I’m interested in views as to whether the M10m is a good and worthwhile buy at about 20% less than the current M11 incarnation. 

YOLO

[colint544]

When the M9M came out, reviewers were blown away by the high quality images the camera produced. They were said to be in medium format territory.

When the M246 came out, Icelandic photographer Ragnar Axelsson did a video for Leica where he remarked that the images from the camera were 'from another world... like a big field camera in a small box'.

When the M10M came out, the quality was significantly upped again. 8"x10" equivalent, perhaps?

I don't know if we're entering the field of diminishing returns with the M11 Mono. I guess it adds conveniences like better battery, and less need for ND filters. I'm sure you could get the M10M, save several thousand on the deal, and never hit the limits of that camera. Good luck, whatever you end up doing.

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 June 22 by colint544

[Stuart Richardson]

On 6/22/2023 at 10:04 AM, colint544 said:

When the M9M came out, reviewers were blown away by the high quality images the camera produced. They were said to be in medium format territory.

When the M246 came out, Icelandic photographer Ragnar Axelsson did a video for Leica where he remarked that the images from the camera were 'from another world... like a big field camera in a small box'.

When the M10M came out, the quality was significantly upped again. 8"x10" equivalent, perhaps?

I don't know if we're entering the field of diminishing returns with the M11 Mono. I guess it adds conveniences like better battery, and less need for ND filters. I'm sure you could get the M10M, save several thousand on the deal, and never hit the limits of that camera. Good luck, whatever you end up doing.

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 this thread is old, but I felt the need to respond to the last comment. I just recently bought an M10M, and though I have not got it in my hands yet, I have tested the files. They are very good. I also shoot 8x10 and 4x5. They are totally different. The M240 with its 24mp cannot stand up to a well scanned 4x5 negative. Nothing can really approach 8x10 when properly done. No offense to RAX...I know him and like him. I have even printed for him. But he is not correct in this one. I also don't think he has used a field camera...at least not in the last 20+ years. He has a journalist's background and was using Leica 35mm cameras and maybe something like the Mamiya 7 before he converted to digital, which he was already doing when I moved to Iceland in 2007 or so. I happily embrace using film and digital, and work as a printer using both. There is no truly satisfying one to one comparison between the two. If there is, it is closer to digital performing about one to one and a half format sizes up. So good 35mm digital might have the sharpness and tonality as low ISO 6x7 film. 4x5, which is double the size, compares better to medium format digital. 8x10, which is 4 times the area of 4x5, does not currently have a digital equivalent. Ultimately, none of this really matters. Just use what you want to use and be happy.

[colint544]

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I know this thread is old, but I felt the need to respond to the last comment. I just recently bought an M10M, and though I have not got it in my hands yet, I have tested the files. They are very good. I also shoot 8x10 and 4x5. They are totally different. The M240 with its 24mp cannot stand up to a well scanned 4x5 negative. Nothing can really approach 8x10 when properly done. No offense to RAX...I know him and like him. I have even printed for him. But he is not correct in this one. I also don't think he has used a field camera...at least not in the last 20+ years. He has a journalist's background and was using Leica 35mm cameras and maybe something like the Mamiya 7 before he converted to digital, which he was already doing when I moved to Iceland in 2007 or so. I happily embrace using film and digital, and work as a printer using both. There is no truly satisfying one to one comparison between the two. If there is, it is closer to digital performing about one to one and a half format sizes up. So good 35mm digital might have the sharpness and tonality as low ISO 6x7 film. 4x5, which is double the size, compares better to medium format digital. 8x10, which is 4 times the area of 4x5, does not currently have a digital equivalent. Ultimately, none of this really matters. Just use what you want to use and be happy.

Very interesting, and a point well made. I wrote that post somewhat tongue in cheek, referencing the often over the top hyperbole there is whenever a new digital M camera appears.

I have an M11, and a Plaubel Makina 67. I shot an identical scene with both cameras (the Makina loaded with Kodak Portra 400). I scanned the negs at maximum resolution on a Hasselblad scanner, and compared them with the M11 files. There is considerably more detail from the M11 when you zoom right in, but I actually prefer the look of the picture from the Makina. It has a more pleasing, rounded, medium format look, whereas the picture from the M11 just looks extremely sharp. Not the same thing at all.

Good luck with your M10M. I'm still using an M9M, and I love it. To me, the monochrome sensor M cameras are the special ones.

[Stuart Richardson]

13 minutes ago, colint544 said:

I have an M11, and a Plaubel Makina 67. I shot an identical scene with both cameras (the Makina loaded with Kodak Portra 400). I scanned the negs at maximum resolution on a Hasselblad scanner, and compared them with the M11 files. There is considerably more detail from the M11 when you zoom right in, but I actually prefer the look of the picture from the Makina. It has a more pleasing, rounded, medium format look, whereas the picture from the M11 just looks extremely sharp. Not the same thing at all.

 

Yes, this tracks with my experience. Digital usually wins for sharpness, not always for resolution depending on the film and lenses. But usually for functional resolution. Digital's resolution just stops at the pixel pitch of the sensor. Film does not have a specific extinction point. It depends on the film and processing. Also film lenses tend not to be as sharp as current lenses made for digital. But you are going to get a much sharper result with Tmax 100 or Acros and rodinal than you would with Portra in C41 chems. These changes make a huge difference. In my experience, film's highlight handling behavior (creating a natural roll off) and its tonality usually surpasses digital in the larger formats. This does make a bit of sense if you think about it. While film may struggle to capture the sharp detail of a digital sensor, it is fundamentally reacting to light at a smaller scale. The individual silver halide crystals are tiny, and each reacts to light. So even if the lens does not draw enough detail, film has a huge continuous range of "samples". While digital is fixed with as many million pixels it has, there are billions of individual silver halide grains...especially when the film format itself is massively larger than a 35mm digital sensor. So while they may not render detail, they do react to light and create very smooth gradation. The natural chemical processes also attenuate highlights, so it is very difficult to overexpose them, leading to a fine and nuanced tonality that can be trickier at times for digital to match.

Another massive factor is the way that lenses interact with the format. For example, an 8x10 portrait might be taken at f16 with a 450mm lens. An M10M might be a 75mm at f2. Even when the depth of field is similar, the look is just different.

Ultimately it is not better or worse, just different. So that is sometimes why I get a little irritated by comments like the one by RAX. I understand where he is coming from, but it really is not applicable.

 

Edited October 2 by Stuart Richardson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[colint544]

22 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Yes, this tracks with my experience. Digital usually wins for sharpness, not always for resolution depending on the film and lenses. But usually for functional resolution. Digital's resolution just stops at the pixel pitch of the sensor. Film does not have a specific extinction point. It depends on the film and processing. Also film lenses tend not to be as sharp as current lenses made for digital. But you are going to get a much sharper result with Tmax 100 or Acros and rodinal than you would with Portra in C41 chems. These changes make a huge difference. In my experience, film's highlight handling behavior (creating a natural roll off) and its tonality usually surpasses digital in the larger formats. This does make a bit of sense if you think about it. While film may struggle to capture the sharp detail of a digital sensor, it is fundamentally reacting to light at a smaller scale. The individual silver halide crystals are tiny, and each reacts to light. So even if the lens does not draw enough detail, film has a huge continuous range of "samples". While digital is fixed with as many million pixels it has, there are billions of individual silver halide grains...especially when the film format itself is massively larger than a 35mm digital sensor. So while they may not render detail, they do react to light and create very smooth gradation. The natural chemical processes also attenuate highlights, so it is very difficult to overexpose them, leading to a fine and nuanced tonality that can be trickier at times for digital to match.

Another massive factor is the way that lenses interact with the format. For example, an 8x10 portrait might be taken at f16 with a 450mm lens. An M10M might be a 75mm at f2. Even when the depth of field is similar, the look is just different.

Ultimately it is not better or worse, just different. So that is sometimes why I get a little irritated by comments like the one by RAX. I understand where he is coming from, but it really is not applicable.

 

You're considerably more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, and it's fascinating stuff. Even I can see that highlights are a bit of a weak spot for digital compared to film. Film highlights just don't clip the same way. Film has real beauty when handled right. But, as you say, there is no wrong or right. Each has its uses.