Gingerly considering digital M...

[Wildcolugoman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been using analogue film cameras (leica ii, m4, m5, CLE, Leicaflex SL) for a long time and i love the haptic experiences i get when i use them (who doesn't ?).

Once in a long while, i use the fujifilm xpro2 with m mount lenses... Just because sometimes i work at project sites and film isn't exactly economical. The xpro2 feels different (maybe it's apsc; maybe i just don't get the haptic feel no matter how manual i go...)

And film is getting really expensive for my film cameras.

As much as I'm resisting going digital for leica m, I'm asking how different is the feeling i get from using an m10. 

All things 'equal', is the difference in user process just in the film versus sd card?

Or does it entail too much 'idiot proofing' like perhaps a Q2/Q3?

Would it be like a CLE or M7?

Or an M5/M6?

Please help me save on film costs. Lol....

[Al Brown]

THe feeling is the same, the cost and results are different.
Go for it. Tape over the display for statrers and proceed from there for gradual adaptation.

[Advertisement]

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

[evikne]

An M10-D (without the LCD on the back) would be even more similar. They are difficult to find on the second hand market, but there is one now in the Classifieds section of the forum.

[Stuart Richardson]

Closest to an M7 with a built in winder and no advance lever. I think the M10 series is the one that feels the most like a film camera. Obviously the sounds are different and the most obvious change is the big screen on back and the buttons. But you can put a half case on it that covers it, if you like. The M10-D is brilliant if you just want to shoot digital while feeling more like film, but unfortunately they have become extremely expensive compared to the regular M10s. Most M users will get used to the screen and be at home pretty quickly. It is about as seamless as change as can be expected with a fully featured digital camera.

Edited January 31 by Stuart Richardson

[pippy]

4 hours ago, Wildcolugoman said:

...how different is the feeling i get from using an m10......All things 'equal', is the difference in user process just in the film versus sd card?...

For someone such as yourself who is very familiar with the M series of film cameras using any digital M will feel, in essence, exactly the same and yes; the main difference is the post-prod work. Even there things aren't too different for anyone who has darkroom skills as pretty much all of the techniques used in 'wet' processing and printing have their equivalents in the digital processing world.

Film advance apart the haptics of film and digi-M cameras are - as near as makes no odds - identical. Shutter-speed dial; aperture and focus controls are in exactly the same places. The only real difference you will notice between your M4 and a digi-M is that the speed-dial works in the reverse direction. Turning the dial clockwise selects a slower speed (etc.). Additionally the digi-M cameras have the benefit - over your M4 - of TTL metering with the LED readout (Under / Correct / Over) visible in the viewfinder. As your existing cameras are fully-manual I would suggest you continue this practice and use your experience with the metering of the M5 / CLE to interpret the scene / lighting conditions using the meter as a helpful indicator of what the camera thinks is going on...

One obvious advantage 'In Use' with a digi-M is that ISO can be selected at will and conditions-dependent.

As far as which model to buy goes? A regular M10 would be an excellent choice. It does everything very well and nothing (AFAIK) badly. The digital camera which is the closest Leica has made in comparison to your M4 was the M-D Typ-262 but, unfortunately, this series was made in rather a small production run (c. 1400 units as far as anyone knows) so I wouldn't advise holding out for one of those as (IMX) they only very rarely come up for sale.

Any other questions you may have please do ask and we'll try to help.

Philip.

Edited January 31 by pippy

[LocalHero1953]

Going digital is a mental thing, and your reaction to it depends on you - none of us can tell you exactly how to deal with it.

I went from M2 to M9 (then M240). As someone comfortable with the digital world, I had no wish to hide the fact that the M9 was a digital tool - I embraced it and all the facilities that a digital tool can offer. So I have never understood the wish to tape up a screen or get a M10-D or similar. If I want the film experience, I shoot with film. But it takes all sorts.....🤷‍♂️

I use the screen on my cameras mainly for menus, when needed, and not for image review (my digital cameras now are all EVF-based, so I use the press-and-hold function if I need to check a shot has worked). The EVF is useful to show others the shots you have just taken; if you're a solitary photographer, that is irrelevant, and you can just ignore it.

As for post processing, you can do as much or as little as with film. If you just send your films to labs and get enprints back, then you can just shoot jpgs. If you like doing your own developing and printing (with cropping, dodging and burning, grain and contrast control etc) then you would surely want to do the same with digital images - but it's a learning process which not everyone takes to. I was fortunate to start with Lightroom 3 when it used terms that I was familiar with from analogue days and not a great deal else. I have grown with Lightroom as it has added immensely powerful tools, especially in masking and noise reduction, so my learning has been slow and steady. I don't envy anyone approaching it from scratch now, though you can still be selective about which tools you use.

One immense benefit of digital over analogue that is not often mentioned, is the speed of seeing results, and the zero marginal cost of shooting. Even if you don't check images on the screen after every shot, you can evaluate them almost immediately when you get home, remember what you did when shooting and work out how to make corrections: the feedback and iterative improvement process is far quicker. And you can take lots of alternative shots, and repeat the process, at no cost other than electricity for your computer. The two periods when my photographic skills improved dramatically were (1) when I lived in south east Asia where film purchase and processing were extraordinarily cheap and (2) when I went digital. The downside of this though, is that you will have to choose whether to keep (and manage/catalogue) or delete far more images than you would ever do with film. 

Edited January 31 by LocalHero1953

[newtoleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was shooting an M7 alongside my M10-P. Found it seamless switching from one to the other. AFAIK Leica is the only system where that is possible as things like the Nikon Df differ significantly in use from Nikon Fs.

In the end I stopped shooting film completely this past year - time, effort mainly - I was getting better results on digital PP for less hassle.

[TomB_tx]

I've used Leica Ms and III cameras (along with Leicaflex SL, R models) since 1968 and faced the same situation moving to digital. I tried dSLRs and found them miserable for manual focus and my way of shooting. When Leica finally release the M9 I used my retirement bonus, and used the camera as if it were an M6 - and loved it. Later splurged again and got an M10, which is much closer to film M feel and handling. I still shoot the M10 as if it were a film camera, seldom using the rear LCD unless I need to change menu settings. It's nice to have the ISO setting knob so menus aren't needed for that, but since I was used to ISO 400 as high speed, I leave it set there most of the time. However, the images look so good at ISO 1600 or 3200 I've been using them a lot indoors. I've also gotten lazy and use auto shutter speed more often than I used to, and find the results darn good.

I don't like post-processing on computer, so often just use the jpg images out of camera. These are much better on M10 than M9. I just pop the SD card into the PC and copy off the images. (Strange, I still find 36 exposures are about right before downloading...)

The M11 doesn't appeal to me.

Lately I've been shooting film more, and appreciate how seamless it is to use both M10 and the M4 I bought in 1968.

[mujk]

> As much as I'm resisting going digital for leica m, I'm asking how different is the feeling i get from using an m10. 

The nearest you can get a film M with a digital camera. As noted, the M10 series is the nearest in form factor and function. The previous digital Ms (M8, M9, M (240)) were all a bit thicker. However, the M9 was the last to have frame lines illuminated by ambient light as in the film Ms. In later models illumination is done with a led.

> All things 'equal', is the difference in user process just in the film versus sd card?

As already mentioned, there is no film winding or rewinding and the shutter speed scale on the dial goes in the same direction as in the M6TTL and M7, which is the opposite of other film Ms. The need to carry a spare SD card depends on how much you shoot, but at least one spare battery is good to carry with you all the time. I would recommend transferring the images from the SD card using a card reader. The other alternative is WiFi transfer to a tablet, but the M10 WiFi transfer speed is not great.

> Or does it entail too much 'idiot proofing' like perhaps a Q2/Q3?

You can certainly set both exposure and ISO to automatic, but I would still not say that a digital M is like a fully automatic camera. You still need to focus correctly and set the aperture. And you can always use it in manual exposure metering mode. The exposure metering system of an M10 in non-live view mode (i.e. shutter closed) is by the way similar to that of all other M cameras with a built-in exposure meter, from the M6 through the M10 (M11 only meters with the shutter open). This center-weighted exposure metering system is not particularly fool proof either.

> Would it be like a CLE or M7?

M7 in automatic exposure mode

> Or an M5/M6?

M6TTL (and M7) in manual exposure mode.

[jimofnyc]

If you are at ease using your M series film cameras, then switching to a digital M camera is an easy transition.  You can turn off the rear screen and never see your results until you get home and download everything. Since you would also be moving away from the darkroom experience of film to digital manipulation of your images, hopefully you would also be computer literate so that you could use programs like Photoshop or Lightroom to finish adjusting your photos.  Digital image manipulation is much easier than wet darkroom procedures to achieve the same results.  Plus, the added bonus that your house will smell better...

[kivis]

Been a Leica film guy since 1974. Various M's. Got a used Fuji X-Pro3. Nice rig. Sold it last year and got a lightly used M10. Very happy.

[johnwolf]

The feel of the cameras is different for me: M2/M6 vs M10. I much prefer handling the former. Maybe it’s in my head, but they feel lighter, sleeker, more solid, more comfortable, even though I know they aren’t that different. 

I try to bring the same shooting mindset to both, but never seem to be able to. I shoot more freely with the M10, which can be both good and bad. The great boon of digital, of course, and it’s a big one, is ISO. I sometimes push HP5+ to 1600, but that’s just getting started on the M10.

I don’t shoot color film, and I really enjoy the BW film workflow - developing, making digital contact sheets, scanning - all of it. It feels like there’s some craft to making pictures. And then there’s the aesthetic, especially with BW. No comparison, IMO.

If you’re a dedicated M user, you probably owe it to yourself to try a digital version. And I agree the basic M10 is ideal. 

John

Edited January 31 by johnwolf

[hepcat]

You have some excellent advice in all of the posts above.  My only suggestion is to go for the M10-P.  The shutter is amazingly quiet and it has a touch-screen. Both items that may appear to be small issues, but worth the extra over the M10 if you're buying.  I truly believe that the M10-P will eventually be known at the M6 of digital Leica bodies.  Same form factor as film bodies, adequate file size, excellent.

[newtoleica]

47 minutes ago, hepcat said:

You have some excellent advice in all of the posts above.  My only suggestion is to go for the M10-P.  The shutter is amazingly quiet and it has a touch-screen. Both items that may appear to be small issues, but worth the extra over the M10 if you're buying.  I truly believe that the M10-P will eventually be known at the M6 of digital Leica bodies.  Same form factor as film bodies, adequate file size, excellent.

Agree totally...... both the M10-P and the M10-D (the same without the screen and a different on/off and fake wind on lever)

Edited January 31 by newtoleica

[dpitt]

If you already have some experience in digital, then go for it. In a way any digital M is just the same as any film M, with the added bonus of an A mode like only the M7 has. The viewfinder magnification is a bit lower (0,68 vs 0,72) which makes using 28mm lenses a little bit easier.

The Fujifilm may have adapters for M lenses but their use is totally different compared to the Leica RF.

On the other hand digital M's can be a world apart. The shutter sound is different, the body may be a bit heavier or a bit larger, so it will not be exactly the same. For me the M9 series (M-E included) comes close because it has m the simplest menu's. There is a display, but in my case it is rarely used. All settings that I need are on the camera, and I use the display mostly to check battery status and framing occasionally. Checking sharpness or color is hardly possible because it was not even the best in 2009, so it is years behind now. LV and EVF are not possible. An other difference that can either be a pro or con. You have to use it like any analog camera.

IMO to get the most of any M, it is best to shoot RAW, so be prepared to 'develop' your shots in PP. It is not like Fujifilm with a multitude of 'film modes' to chose from... They never work for me anyway. But the JPG mode on the M9 is not as flexible as Fujifilm. But the RAW files are very flexible in comparison. Leica simply did not design the M9 for JPG shooting, and all the later models are also designed to get the most out of the sensor in the first place. And then to get that result as pure as possible onto your SD card in a DNG file... All else is icing on the cake, and mostly for marketing.

I see that each model has its own challenges, and takes a while to tweak before you get the most out of it. From what I see in a few test shots that I downloaded and what I see on this forum, this is true. If you learn how, you can make any M model sing, maybe some are easier than others.
It does not have to take long in PP to get very pleasing results. Maybe the M9 is also very good at that. As long as I get exposure right and keep the ISO and DR within its limits, it only takes a few seconds to get what I want to see. And it is very hard to impossible in JPG mode to get equal results.

Edited January 31 by dpitt

[Rwc1313]

I was in a very similar boat as you and decided to sell my m mount film body to go digital. I've had a M2, M4, M6, Zeiss Ikon ZM (m mount rangefinder), along with several other film rangefinder bodies. I tried the x-pro2 and x-pro3 a few years ago and generally enjoyed them but preferred using film still at that point. A couple months ago after going on a trip and spending quite a bit on film I decided I wanted to try a digital M body. I had a m-p 240 at first but ultimately decided on an m10 and I love it. I use mandler era summicron lenses so it has a similar feel to what I was using with my film cameras. I think I'll get a "beater" m4-2 or P in the future to throw in the bag and take it out when I have something I have a feeling will come out well. Overall coming from a similar position you are in I recommend the m10 or one of the 240's if you don't mind the slightly thicker body. The x-pro's are cool but not the same thing in my opinion.

Edited February 1 by Rwc1313

[intangiblethings]

Depressing the shutter of a film M still feels way better than its digital counterpart IMO. 

For shooting/camera experience, I'd shoot film every time if not for the lack of versatility. 

[newtoleica]

1 hour ago, intangiblethings said:

Depressing the shutter of a film M still feels way better than its digital counterpart IMO. 

For shooting/camera experience, I'd shoot film every time if not for the lack of versatility. 

The 10-P/D/R shutter is very similar. The best of the digital Ms. A quiet thunk.

[Wildcolugoman]

Thanks to everyone for convincing and balanced views! 

I also just read that the visoflex will make the m10 even more versatile in many ways? Anyone with views on this?

There's an m10 on the local market with a leica grip (in place of the base plate) and 3 original batts for abt 3800euro. GAS is building up...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mujk]

1 hour ago, Wildcolugoman said:

Thanks to everyone for convincing and balanced views! 

I also just read that the visoflex will make the m10 even more versatile in many ways? Anyone with views on this?

There's an m10 on the local market with a leica grip (in place of the base plate) and 3 original batts for abt 3800euro. GAS is building up...

There are many opinions on the use of the add-on electronic viewfinder (Visoflex 020). Some like it a lot and would be ready to buy a digital M without the optical OVF (viewfinder/rangefinder) if they could get it with a built-in EVF instead. Some people prefer the OVF at least for 28mm to 90mm focal lengths and primarily use the EVF for longer and shorter focal lengths, for adapted lenses that don't couple to the rangefinder and for macro use.

From a functional point of view the EVF works in the same way as the LCD screen on the back of the M10, i.e. you put the camera into liveview mode to use it (shutter open). There are three different exposure metering patterns in this mode, while there is only one in non-liveview mode (shutter closed). However, the OVF can be used all the time, also in liveview.

There is no possibility to have lenses with automatically closing aperture on an M camera, so if you want to determine the exact plane of focus when focussing with the EVF you may need to open up the aperture manually for focussing and then close down before exposure (unless you shoot with the aperture fully open). Or, when using a rangefinder-coupled lens, use the OVF rangefinder for focussing and then move your eye to the OVF for framing/exposure.

Edited February 2 by mujk