Leica Is anybody else out there wanting an M10?

I've had the M10 for about eight months now and I love it. That said, I was equally happy with the M-D 262 and if I had it to do again, I probably wouldn't bother with the upgrade.
 
I *have* the M10, and it's here to stay - what a camera! It's sturdy, fluid in use (if you tune yourself to working with a rangefinder) and delivers wonderful IQ. The sensor is a bit less robust in terms of pure technical prowess than the usual Sony-made FF 24MP ones, but colours, detail and overall quality are phenomenal. Highlights blow out easily, so you have to ETTR (expose to the right of the historgram), but the way the meter works in RF mode encourages that anyway (I hardly ever use LiveView). Highlight recovery is not quite as good as on other sensors of that class, but shadow recovery is fantastic. Once you've dialed your brain in to make the most of what the camera has to offer, it's hard to go back. I also own a D750 (a camera that - in spite of all its merits - I'm not entirely happy with, but which powers my main system and has the most forgiving and versatile sensor - still!) and a Sony A7 II that I bought to sort of "prevent" myself from buying a digital Leica because I was able to adapt M mount lenses. Shooting with either of them doesn't even come close when it comes to satisfaction and, somewhat surprisingly, the quality of possible results - of course, that has a lot to do with the lenses as well, but even if I adapt them to the Sony, I don't get the same class of results, so it's the package as a whole that performs on that level. In short, finally coughing up and going all in was the best decision I've made in the last couple of years when it comes to photography.

It's crazy, but I'm practically using the M10 as an EDC ... I know that's not very sensible, but I'm bound to miss the camera if I take anything else. Thankfully, the G1X III is a very convincing performer as well, so sometimes, reason and convenience win over the sheer pleasure of using the M10.

M.
 
Last edited:
I'm practically using the M10 as an EDC ... I know that's not very sensible, but I'm bound to miss the camera if I take anything else. Thankfully, the G1X III is a very convincing performer as well, so sometimes, reason and convenience win over the sheer pleasure of using the M10.
I'm guessing... EDC = Every Day Camera? If so, I'm in the same boat of not wanting anything else than my main camera (Sony A7R2) when I'm out and about. For instance, I thought seriously about getting a Fuji X100F but I know I'd be thinking continuously how much better the shot had been when I'd have the A7R2 with me.
 
I paid for the M9 and M Monochrom mostly by selling lenses, bought before the M8 came out. Leica mount lenses tend to retain value once a Digital RF came out. Most of my F-Mount lenses also retain value, and other "Dead-Mount" lenses went up in price with the advent of Mirrorless Interchangeable lens cameras.

I'm still happy with the M9, M Monochrom, and Nikon Df. But nice to know the M10 is available. And that Leica went back to little-endian DNG, as used in the M8, M9, and M Monochrom. The M240 used Big-Endian, which is a PINTA for Intel processors. Not a factor for 99.99% of buyers.
 
EDC = Every Day Camera?
Spot on - it's usually an acronym for "every day carry", but an "every day carry camera" is an "every day camera" for me :) Interestingly, the only other camera that comes close to the M10, even though I don't enjoy using it anyway near as much, is the Sony A7 II. Solid performance, easy to carry, compact, good compact lenses (Samyang ones in my case) available - plus it's comparatively cheap, even in the whole of FF land.


M.
 
I have both the fuji x-pro cameras, and I really rate them.

But increasingly I seem to be reaching for my m9p which I really enjoying using and love the files from

My main glass ceiling with the 9 is the iso.

I recently(ish) picked up a 7artisans 50 f1.1 and although it’s not really any sort of technically outstanding optical performer, the “missing” couple of stops it gives the m9 have really opened up where I can use it

Leica is expensive.

But we now live in a world of cameras that are expesnive across the board (sony a9 for example)

You can buy a secondhand m9 (or even m240) for a few hundreds more than a new a7ii or x-t2

I know this is comparing a new price to a secondhand one, which is very apples and oranges, but equally if one has ones heart set on something, then I think it’s worth holding out to get that

Of course leica glass is very expensive, especially the fast stuff.

But products from Zeiss and Voigtländer (and now 7artisans) might not outperform native m mount glass, but that doesn’t mean they make bad photos.

So the although the m will never be a cheap system, one can get into it for a similar expense as many other brands, so it can be done if you shop secondhand
 
With the M9 at high ISO, I use slower SD cards, Sandisk and PNY 4x 8GByte cards. Some high speed cards will induce banding noise in the image.

M9 with the 50/1.1 Nokton wide-open, 1/60th, ISO 2500.

by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Default Noise Reduction in LR6.
 
Last edited:
I envy those of you who can afford Leica at all, let alone several different ones. Leica costs more than my car.
You're right of course, but that doesn't stop me having a peek on eBay. Just as I notice the M9/ M-E second hand prices creeping down, they soon enough shoot back up again. Owners have very much cottoned on to the "replaced sensor" value.
 
I envy those of you who can afford Leica at all, let alone several different ones. Leica costs more than my car.

In the UK, my M9P, fresh back from Leica, with the new sensor, CLA, RF calibration, fully boxed + all original accessories and 1 year Leica backed warranty cost £500 more than a brand new Sony A7iii

500 is a big chunk of change. The A7iii is a far better spec'd camera.

But if "you" really want an M and have enough money to buy the current range of cameras, it's not such a huge uplift in budget.... as with everything secondhand you have to chose wisely, but IMO it's actually never been cheaper to get into digital FF M... the 9s are coming up post Leica service with new sensors, the 240 value is now quite low. Sure the M10 costs car money, but it's the latest and greatest.... and all the Ms effectively work the same with the rangefinder and take the same lenses.

IMHO the M10 over the M9 is all about a polished product, a nicer VF, some more functions and (a lot) more ISO. These things are great to have, but the quintessential M/RF focusing experience is about the same between all of them... if one isn't buying an M for RF focusing then it's probably better to get the Sony/Fuji/etc as the live view and EVF implementations are better done on these cameras, whereas on the M10/240 they're more there in case you want them, rather than what the camera is all about
 
I think it's time to elaborate a bit - so this post'll be on the lengthy side; sorry for that, but it may shed light on a couple of aspects I find quite important.

Let me start with stating that the M10 sure isn't for everyone - and that has nothing whatsoever to do with money. But for those who are like me and are into a certain way of creating images, I think there's no better camera on the whole market than the M10.

The reason why I'm so happy with the M10 is that it requires me to work consciously and deliberately and, whenever I do this, provides results that are enormously satisfying. Part of this has to do with the amazing quality of M mount lenses, but the camera is also polished and rewarding in use to a point I never had thought possible before. Everything just fits and comes together to form a package I couldn't be more pleased with.

In my personal case, it's important that the M10 brings enough to the table in terms of technology to be truely competitive - the M9, charming though it may be, doesn't provide a similarily modern sensor and processor. Fact is, files from the M10 look better and are better to work with than anything I can get from either of my two other FF cameras, the Nikon D750 and the A7 II. That's quite a feat - the D750's sensor is still one of the best 24MP sensors on the market, and Sony has built that sensor (the A7 II sports a close relative - but it's not quite that good, especially in low light).

This could mean the end of my quest for the right gear - and in many ways, it does. I've now travelled with a highly portable FF system of the highest quality - and it was just great!

However, the trouble is, the M10 will never be my only camera. For assignments, I often need tele lenses and AF because things are developing and I rarely get to control, let alone stage anything. That's why I prefer zooms in most cases as well.

Now, I tried lots of different systems and found that I really, really want FF files to work with (I actually deleted a long discription here - I hope it's for the better). However, up until last week, this left me with only two real choices: Nikon DSLRs and Sony A7 series cameras (I don't have anything against Canon, but I've been a Nikon shooter since the mid-80s, so it was just a question of consistency and compatibility with existing gear).

I was happy and impressed when the D750 became available; after much deliberation, I finally bought one. It is a nice enough camera in the hand, but most importantly, it is fast and reliable in use and produces very, very nice files, especially in low light. The D750 has been my event camera ever since.

But it does have two major drawbacks - the extend of one of which I only discovered quite recently.

The first one is obvious: A full system (the body with two zooms or three to four primes, maybe a flash, too) is big, bulky and pretty heavy, the rather "compact" body notwithstanding. This means that I can either have a reasonbly mobile setup or full coverage, and it's clear that I have to go for the latter when shooting events. Fun this ain't. But it's something I've been so far willing to put up with - because of those files ...

However, the second issue does bug me a lot more: As fast and seemingly reliable the phase detect AF system in the D750 presents itself, it turns out to have lots of trouble with producing tack-sharp images at the pixel level, specifically when using fast lenses. I do own such glass - most noteably, the Sigma Art primes, 24/35/50mm, and as a matter of fact, I see mush at the pixel level way too often. That's not because the lenses are duds - using LiveView reveals that they *can* be super-sharp on the D750. Yet, AF in LiveView on the D750 is sluggish and, IMO, unusable in any situation that isn't a studio still life setup. But why don't they work better in DSLR mode? Well, it all has to do with the fact that phase detect AF systems are the devil to micro-adjust and additionally are hard to keep fully fine-tuned. On the D750, the latter can - at least in theory - be achieved by using the "AF Fine Tune" function. But apart from being a crutch where there shouldn't be the need for one, this takes ages to set up for each lens individually, and moreover, the Sigma lenses usually need so much correction that you have to use their own USB dock and software instead of the in-camera system, which takes even longer and is even more tedious and frustrating. Still, I'd put up with this if it had to be done only once - but as a matter of fact, you have to re-adjust everything after some time, going through the whole unpleasantness again ...

My whole interest in playing around with manual focus on FF mirrorless - in this case, the only one available that fitted my needs at the time, the Sony A7 II - was triggered by this issue. Since diving head first into film photography, I had collected quite an interesting array of lenses, among them, most noteably, some renowned M mount glass that should at least be the equal of the - comparatively huge - Sigma primes. I wanted crisp images - so I was willing to do my share in getting them instead of relying on a flawed, however sophisticated, machine.

The Sony was - and still is - mostly fun to work with, but all told, if not used within its own eco-system of lenses, it's a poor substitute for a rangefinder or a SLR/DSLR. That's why I do like using the A7 II with the set of small, dedicated primes I ended up purchasing, but the thrill of shooting with adapted lenses wore of quickly. Not because of the results - but remember, I own and shoot quite a few film cameras, SLRs and rangefinders, and know what a good manual focus experience feels like. Even with a great piece of kit like the Voigtländer Close-up adapter, the Sony A7 II feels clunky and fiddly by comparison. On hindsight, I should have gone straight for the M10 that was fresh on the market at the time, but it's no use complaining about the fact that I tried not to spend too much money on a hunch alone ...

After all this, my next discovery came as a shock: Someone auctioned off their Commlite Pro adapter for little money - this allows the use of Nikon G/E lenses (with internal motors) on Sony mirrorless cameras with full AF (up to a point - the camera switches to on-sensor phase-detect ...). So I thought, why not? It would make the Sony into a adapt-all powerhouse if it worked in any usable fashion, so I got the adapter and tried it out. To my utter amazement, when I put those capricious Sigma Art primes on the Sony via the adapter, not only did the Sony A7 II acquire focus in about a third of the time the D750 needed in LiveView, but the images from those lenses finally showed their legendary performance wide open! The entry-level Sony with a third-party adapter of dubious quality (I haven't had any real issues with it, but others have) outperformes my workhorse!? Still, there's no denying it. I'll skip the expletive here - but you get the picture ...

What I want now is a camera with the AF speed of the D750 and the accuracy of the A7 II. It's possible that the freshly announced Nikon Z6 will provide that via the FTZ adapter. Then I'll have found my "other" camera - again, at considerable cost, but this'll finally allow me to get rid of a substantial subset of the digital gear I amassed over the last couple of years in the search of the perfect tool. Things look quite promising, actually.

In the meantime, nothing of all this takes away one bit from the joy of shooting with the M10. It's a different domain, really. One that's effectively untouched, untainted by all these troubles revolving around "the latest and greatest" - that's priceless, but it didn't come cheap. And it did take a whole odyssey on my part to finally get it - in every sense of the word.

M.
 
My M9 is still my favourite camera after eight years, although it is not my most used camera. It's the camera which I enjoy shooting the most, and with which I have the strongest emotional bond. There are only three issues with how I view the M9: shutter noise, high ISO noise, and manual focus.

Although the M9's shutter is more quiet than the M8, it still has an annoying zzzrrrp recocking sound. The M10 and the M10-P especially seem to solve this problem. High ISO noise is also an issue, not to mention being restricted to ISO 2500 before the noise becomes ridiculous. Again, the M10 solves this. Manual focus is par for the course, and I sometimes find myself wanting to shoot something very quickly and discreetly without raising the camera to my eye. Yes, I often go hyperfocal but that sometimes lowers shutter speed to a point where subjects become blurred from motion. I suspect the higher ISO capabilities of the M10 might solve that, too.

On paper, the M10 would solve my M9 issues, but I'm still wary about the colour science behind the sensor. M9 colour is extremely pleasing, and images have a crispness and bite which I am concerned might be lost in the switch from CCD to CMOS. Then there's the issue of budgeting another 10k AUD for the M10... I might as well wait another three to five years until secondhand prices become manageable. In the meantime, hey, I still get to shoot my favourite camera!
 
On paper, the M10 would solve my M9 issues, but I'm still wary about the colour science behind the sensor. M9 colour is extremely pleasing, and images have a crispness and bite which I am concerned might be lost in the switch from CCD to CMOS. Then there's the issue of budgeting another 10k AUD for the M10... I might as well wait another three to five years until secondhand prices become manageable. In the meantime, hey, I still get to shoot my favourite camera!

Do note that I write this as someone who couldn’t afford an M10 even if they were on a 30% off sale :D

A lot was made of the switch to CMOS with the 240.

There is of course that blog post about ‘how to PP your 240 images to look like m9 ones’

But there’s more to the m9 look than the colour (delightful though it is), the native tone curve is pleasing and as you say the bite and crispness of the files just have something that I don’t personally see in CMOS cameras, which by and large* I’ve found to possess a CGI type quality

Whether this is because 18mp and FF is some sort of mechanical grip (sic) sweet spot or something about the ADC process of CCD being different than CMOS I wouldn’t like to speculate... the original DPR studio tool allows you to compare the m9 against period incumbent CMOS FF (sadly not newer cameras though) and you can see the difference. It might simply be that the m9 is the only FF CCD camera ever made.

....but there’s something about the images the M9 makes that I find not only highly pleasing, but also very easy to work on, requiring very little beyond the photographer making a good job of the exposure (which in my case isn’t always the easiest job in the word, ymmv)

In some ways I think that today’s modern 14 stop DR CMOS cameras are basically giving you a blank page and a paintbox in post and you have work the files to give you what you want, the m9 seems to give something that’s pretty much there or it isn’t and the file needs to be deleted

*As a side note. CMOS cameras I’ve encountered (so there maybe be others) that have a nice ‘organic’ output are the X-Pro1, the Leica X Vario and the original Sony RX1. YMMV.
 
I've stated this many, many times- CMOS sensors depend on oversampling and signal processing for noise reduction, and require much larger non-uniformity corrections than a CCD sensor. The DNG file from a CCD is very close to raw data, hot pixels and dead columns are averaged out.
 
I've stated this many, many times- CMOS sensors depend on oversampling and signal processing for noise reduction, and require much larger non-uniformity corrections than a CCD sensor. The DNG file from a CCD is very close to raw data, hot pixels and dead columns are averaged out.

Thanks Brian,

I think I may have sponged up from somewhere that CMOS requires signal amplification and NR baked in at “ground zero” (ie ADC) by the vary nature of the chip, and that CCD doesn’t and this is the reason for the difference.

Any truth to this?
 
CMOS is "noisier" at the collectors than CCD's, but has a "universal" reset function and two (or more?) capacitors for every pixel. These allow oversampling and signal averaging to be applied. Frontside illuminated CMOS sensors have the photosensitive layer lower in the chip, and have wiring layers running throughout the device. Onchip A/D for CMOS means less noise as the analog signal does not need to travel off chip to a digitizing board. CMOS sensors are inherently less sensitive to IR.

CCD's are still used heavily in the scientific market, especially for Near-IR applications.
 
CCD's are still used heavily in the scientific market, especially for Near-IR applications.
... astronomy ...

Thanks for those precise insights, guys, very interesting. The CCD magic is something I'm familiar with, albeit not on anything near as intriguing as the M9: My measly old Canon S95 has a CCD sensor, and in good light, it still (after ten years!) delivers really gorgous colours. Makes me wish for a hybrid (low ISO CCD, high ISO CMOS), but I know full well that that's not feasible.

Anyhow, I now finally have an explanation for the fact that while M240s are coming down in price pretty rapidly now, the M9/M9-P prices have pretty much stabilised - a bit higher up than any kind of lust on my part will take me (thankfully ... :)).

Anyhow, I'll (re-)state that the colours and tones coming from the M10 are enormously satisfying - and very often, spot on. Those Sony-bread FF sensors may be somewhat more forgiving, but they're also more pedestrian, and colours aren't anywhere near as nice and accurate (Nikon is a bit better than Sony - but honestly, I'm still searching for helpful WB presets; I've had to customise/neutralise profiles to get closer to reliable starting points - no problem whatsoever on the M10 ...).

M.
 
Back
Top