Is the M10 worth it if...

[Helge]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor einer Stunde schrieb mottykytu:

No I don't, I really like the M10 and looking to buy it, but I don't Sugar coat the M10 and say it is better in ANYWAY than the M240
 

Nobody did sugar coat the M10, only facts and personal experienced have been told.

Nobody did say it is better in anyway. You need to really understand what people are telling you. Everything is said, @adan gave you a pretty comprehensive list.

Before you start now arguing again against things nobody said, go now and make your decision, you‘ve got really everything to make it.

[Advertisement]

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

[pgh]

I’d rather sell all 4 of my various m10 series bodies than shoot 240 that worked perfectly.
“Better” is subjective, but to my mind the m10 is the one time Leica got it closest to the truth. It is absolutely better for my preferences. 

And no, m10s are not perfect nor perfectly reliable. No digital M ever been. Leica has the worst reliability out of every camera manufacturer probably, but the 240 isn’t exempt and the m10 is not demonstrably worse and a lot of complaints on a forum isn’t “data” in any useful sense - certainly not in the way you’re claiming.
 

My M8 came with problems and everything since then has but the m10s - including my early model one I’ve now had for 8 years and just was shooting with today - have been the most reliable over the longest time for me. And not a single issue with the ISO dial. 

[jakontil]

On 5/16/2025 at 8:57 PM, mottykytu said:

Which also show that the m10 ISO dial problems happen much more frequently than any MP240's problems, doesn't it ?

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

[mottykytu]

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

[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]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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 13 hours ago 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]

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.