Is the M10 worth it if...

[mottykytu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, jakontil said:

I had the m240 before getting the m10 on early release.. whilst i was concerned bout the iso dials back then, i managed to escape after 3 years owning it before getting the m10D and the safari.. then the black paint.. thankfully all were oke

besides the btter IQ on high iso, and lack of video, i found d nothing else what makes m10 better than m240.. however i feel that the M10 is what M digital should have been in terms of form factor

but if u r not sure bout its reliability, the m240 is a great camera with longer battery life

By High Iso you mean above 3200 ? or at 1600-3200 and Up? thank

[Advertisement]

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

[jakontil]

1 hour ago, mottykytu said:

By High Iso you mean above 3200 ? or at 1600-3200 and Up? thank

When i was using m240, i would reluctantly shoot at 3200 not to mention 6400, but with m10 i feel im oke even at 6400 but that’s my case, others might differ

[LocalHero1953]

3200 was my limit on the M240 then (and 800 on the M9, 12500 on the SL and Q2, and now 25000 on the SL2-S and Q3 43). Since then AI noise reduction software can work miracles.

[pgh]

I don’t think the M10 is that good with high ISO, it’s better than the 240 but neither of these are great. That said, while I don’t love 3200 on my M10, but it’s never been the reason a picture shot at that ISO has failed. It’s usually just that it’s not that great a picture. In real world use, it’s plenty good to not really be a limiting factor 999 times out of 1000. Just like the “highlight” issue that used to bother me so much more before I realized that in practice, it was sort of a non factor. 

Another thing - low light digital photography really was a revolution about 10 years ago when mirrorless and IBIS became more widespread. With the IBIS and better IQ you could go around shooting color at night like never before with ease. And so many people, including myself did. Now that there have been a million pictures like this, they’re no longer a novelty, and it’s clear that most of them are as average as ever, and that average performance at ISO 3200 is plenty yet again for most circumstances.

If someone is a special case and needs great low light performance as a top priority I think a different camera system is probably a better choice. 

Edited May 20 by pgh

[mmanda]

My M10 has been flawless.

Funny how some will ask for advice and then smack the hand of every person that replies with their experience.  Buy the M10, buy the M240 it doesnt really matter to us.

Well actually it does matter, if @mottykytu buys a M240,  we wont have them in this section of the leica forum!!  🤭

 

 

[3D-Kraft.com]

The M240 was my biggest disappointment so far. Even though the strong red/orange cast has been somewhat reduced with later firmware versions, the color shifts are still difficult for me to correct in post-processing. The focus magnifier can only be zoomed into the center, which still requires recomposing, and lenses with field curvature continue to cause problems. The size and weight were also too bulky for me.

I would therefore definitely recommend the M10 and, if possible, choose a cheaper 50mm lens first – there are many good, affordable alternatives in this range.

[mottykytu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

3200 was my limit on the M240 then (and 800 on the M9, 12500 on the SL and Q2, and now 25000 on the SL2-S and Q3 43). Since then AI noise reduction software can work miracles.

What will we have to exchange for the "miracle AI noise reduction"?

Detail, Microcontrast or nothing ?

[otto.f]

On 5/16/2025 at 9:55 AM, mottykytu said:

Yes, I know the M10 is better in almost any other criteria , but don't know it is worth a 50 F2 V5 "Better" than Mp240 , lol

I would prefer the 50 F2 v4 anyway. The rangefinder of the M10 is much better than any former M and works faster therefore.

[LocalHero1953]

4 hours ago, mottykytu said:

What will we have to exchange for the "miracle AI noise reduction"?

Detail, Microcontrast or nothing ?

Detail and micro contrast are what we gain, not lose. The thing we might lose is reality: is that detail actually correct, or just what the AI thinks might be there.

I was taking photographs of speakers at an academic event on Monday. I used LR's AI Denoise on some of the shots in lower light, and noticed that I could see the hairs on the rim of a speaker's ear. It looked entirely natural, but in the unenhanced image I could not see the hairs, other than a fuzz around the ear - it was probably the hairs, but also probably not exactly as the AI showed them.

[pgh]

^ as above, the answer is reality. 
personally, I won’t use it for this reason. Also, as I said, I’ve never had a need with my m10. like, I’ve never used a NR filter or plugin in the 8 years I’ve owned it. Not once, because it never made a meh picture better, and it never made a good one better for that matter. 

It’s also why I don’t consider most smartphone phone images to be photographs anymore, but more digital collages based spitting out highly aestheticized renditions of what apple et al think people like to see (they’re often right). 
 

that’s a longer discussion for elsewhere, but it’s a very important one as AI is already reflecting back a world that doesn’t exist and is distorting people’s perceptions of what does. In a way it’s a problem that’s not new but the scope and scale are different. 

Edited May 21 by pgh

[mottykytu]

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Detail and micro contrast are what we gain, not lose. The thing we might lose is reality: is that detail actually correct, or just what the AI thinks might be there.

I was taking photographs of speakers at an academic event on Monday. I used LR's AI Denoise on some of the shots in lower light, and noticed that I could see the hairs on the rim of a speaker's ear. It looked entirely natural, but in the unenhanced image I could not see the hairs, other than a fuzz around the ear - it was probably the hairs, but also probably not exactly as the AI showed them.

 

1 hour ago, pgh said:

^ as above, the answer is reality. 
personally, I won’t use it for this reason. Also, as I said, I’ve never had a need with my m10. like, I’ve never used a NR filter or plugin in the 8 years I’ve owned it. Not once, because it never made a meh picture better, and it never made a good one better for that matter. 

It’s also why I don’t consider most smartphone phone images to be photographs anymore, but more digital collages based spitting out highly aestheticized renditions of what apple et al think people like to see (they’re often right). 
 

that’s a longer discussion for elsewhere, but it’s a very important one as AI is already reflecting back a world that doesn’t exist and is distorting people’s perceptions of what does. In a way it’s a problem that’s not new but the scope and scale are different. 

I mean Is it "That Bad" ?

Or It is smart enough to make people who have never saw the RAW files think that it (after the noise correction) is reality ?

Edited May 21 by mottykytu

[charlesphoto99]

Denoise and other forms of AI retouching can be incredibly powerful - if one uses them appropriately and subtly. There's no need to 'botox' your image - just use it at low levels. 

[LocalHero1953]

3 hours ago, mottykytu said:

 

I mean Is it "That Bad" ?

Or It is smart enough to make people who have never saw the RAW files think that it (after the noise correction) is reality ?

It depends if you ‘really’ want your photos to show reality. Most of the time I don’t. As a portrait, theatre and performance photographer I’m trying to tell a story. If that means I remove a few theatre exit signs, or a pimple then I’ll do so. Sometimes I’ll use Topaz to make someone look in focus when they weren’t (light was too low for a small aperture). The camera photo is a starting point - for me. There are just so many reasons for taking photos other than for documentary or wildlife truth!

[FarbSpieler]

I’ve used both the MP240 and M10, and while the MP240 is a solid camera, the M10 feels noticeably more refined. It’s slimmer, has a more film-like feel in hand, better high ISO performance, and (to my eye) more natural color straight out of camera. The simplicity of the M10 interface also makes it feel closer to a true M experience.

If it’s your only M body and you want something that feels timeless and won’t get in your way creatively, I’d say the M10 is worth the stretch.

[colint544]

This is a great thread. I'm still using my M9 Monochrom. That thing feels bomb proof, it just goes, every time. It did develop sensor corrosion, but Leica fixed that, and zero issues since. I've taken a lot of pictures with it, and looking through them, they seem closer to the look of film than any other digital camera I've used.

As much as people say the M10 is the sweet spot in M digital cameras, I wonder if the M12 is going to be the one which claims that title. Leica have nearly 20 years experience of digital Ms now, and they do listen to the feedback they get. 

If they can make the M12 3mm shorter - and I bet they do - it will be back to the precise dimensions of a classic Wetzlar M. I bet they also simplify it, so no triple resolution sensor, and an even more pared down interface. Perhaps, finally, a screen which doesn't protrude from the back of the camera. And if they manage to squeeze in an image stabiliser - again I bet they do - that will open up a whole new world. I can see a brass and black paint M12 being extremely covetable, not to mention, a superb picture making machine.

[evikne]

1 hour ago, colint544 said:

As much as people say the M10 is the sweet spot in M digital cameras, I wonder if the M12 is going to be the one which claims that title. Leica have nearly 20 years experience of digital Ms now, and they do listen to the feedback they get. 

If they can make the M12 3mm shorter - and I bet they do - it will be back to the precise dimensions of a classic Wetzlar M. I bet they also simplify it, so no triple resolution sensor, and an even more pared down interface. Perhaps, finally, a screen which doesn't protrude from the back of the camera. And if they manage to squeeze in an image stabiliser - again I bet they do - that will open up a whole new world. I can see a brass and black paint M12 being extremely covetable, not to mention, a superb picture making machine.

You make me look forward to the M12. Not to mention the M12-D! 😄

[Chris W]

On 5/20/2025 at 10:28 PM, 3D-Kraft.com said:

The M240 was my biggest disappointment so far. Even though the strong red/orange cast has been somewhat reduced with later firmware versions, the color shifts are still difficult for me to correct in post-processing.

I found this exactly. Really disappointing.

I solid it after a year. It took a few years to save up for an M10 and I really like it, much more than the M240. I've had zero tech issues and I don't have to fuss trying to correct the colour of the image. 

[jakontil]

On 5/23/2025 at 3:47 PM, colint544 said:

This is a great thread. I'm still using my M9 Monochrom. That thing feels bomb proof, it just goes, every time. It did develop sensor corrosion, but Leica fixed that, and zero issues since. I've taken a lot of pictures with it, and looking through them, they seem closer to the look of film than any other digital camera I've used.

As much as people say the M10 is the sweet spot in M digital cameras, I wonder if the M12 is going to be the one which claims that title. Leica have nearly 20 years experience of digital Ms now, and they do listen to the feedback they get. 

If they can make the M12 3mm shorter - and I bet they do - it will be back to the precise dimensions of a classic Wetzlar M. I bet they also simplify it, so no triple resolution sensor, and an even more pared down interface. Perhaps, finally, a screen which doesn't protrude from the back of the camera. And if they manage to squeeze in an image stabiliser - again I bet they do - that will open up a whole new world. I can see a brass and black paint M12 being extremely covetable, not to mention, a superb picture making machine.

Im still oke with the m10 form factor despite 3mm taller, reason being im home with my M6TTL black paint film cameras 😅😅 but as soon as i use the other like MP or M2r… dang i feel the difference right off the bat

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[colint544]

14 hours ago, jakontil said:

Im still oke with the m10 form factor despite 3mm taller, reason being im home with my M6TTL black paint film cameras 😅😅 but as soon as i use the other like MP or M2r… dang i feel the difference right off the bat

Totally, just a few mm in height, you wouldn't think it makes a difference. Same when I switch from M11 to M2, if I'm gripping the camera holding the top and bottom, the M2 just fits that little bit better in the hand.