• Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum for photographers and camera enthusiasts!
    If you are looking for critique, tips, advice, buying recommendations, or just want to talk to fellow enthusiasts then join now for free!

Leica Is anybody else out there wanting an M10?

rayvonn

All-Pro
Jan 19, 2015
124
All in all, yes, it's a bit archaic at first and takes some getting used to, but once you are, it's a wonderful way of framing and shooting
Indeed it's all part of the fun and actually easier than one imagines. I even enjoy that unusual process, when using a 21mm lens, of focusing with the internal OVF then framing with the external one before shooting.
 
Dec 29, 2013
124
Switzerland
Indeed it's all part of the fun and actually easier than one imagines. I even enjoy that unusual process, when using a 21mm lens, of focusing with the internal OVF then framing with the external one before shooting.
There's a little conundrum there for me, though: I just love(!) the ThumbsUp (no idea what Leica's calling their version, actually), and I have to remove it to shoot with the 21mm - so it's always a bit of a burden to mount it; thankfully, my Voigtländer 21mm f/4 is tiny, so it's less of a loss. But at least, if I decide against the dedicated finder (which is huge, btw. - I have an adjustable one, Leica's 21-24-28), LiveView is rather usable with this lens. One of these days, I'll have to figure out which in-camera correction profile to use for the lens, too ...

M.
 

mpeterson

Regular
Mar 2, 2014
14
US Midwest
With the recent intro of both the M10-P and M10-D, there are some really nice deals on the “plain vanilla” (if you can call it that) M10. Especially if one is open to the used and store-demo markets. Earlier in this thread I said I’d only upgrade from my M240 if I found such a thing - not really expecting to. But alas, last week I succumbed after stumbling across a pretty amazing buy on a mint barely-used one.

In use, I’ve found the updated tech and features compared to the M240 and M262 to be more impressive than they look like they’d be on paper. Happy with the change so far.
 

christilou

Legend
Jul 13, 2010
164
Sunny Frimley
I have both the M240 and M10 and there are things to like about each of them. I thought the slightly slimmer M10 would be easier for my small hands but actually I find the heft of the M240 a lot easier for some reason. I also prefer the shutter of the M240.
 

Lawrence A.

Hall of Famer
Nov 8, 2012
124
New Mexico
I envy those of you who can afford Leica at all, let alone several different ones. Leica costs more than my car.
I still wish another digital rangefinder would come out (not rangefinder style). The Epson RD-1 is too old for me to justify paying $1000 for a used one. Right now if you want to shoot a real rangefinder that is digital, it's Leica or nothing, and I can afford neither the bodies nor the glass. I'm thinking of the Fuji X100F because the option of using the manual focusing patch would be very appealing to me. I just find I shoot better images if I focus manually. I'm too undisciplined using auto focus and if I don't have to take the time to focus I too often don't take the time for other necessary steps to getting a good photograph. If my circumstances improve, I'd buy a digital Leica and a couple of lenses in a heartbeat, but that is a big if, so I continue my search for the closest thing to a rangefinder experience I can get. Blah blah. Sorry for the blather. I'm afraid I'm becoming a bit of a windbag as I get older. At least at a typewriter.
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Jul 13, 2011
124
Lexington, Virginia
I still wish another digital rangefinder would come out (not rangefinder style). The Epson RD-1 is too old for me to justify paying $1000 for a used one. Right now if you want to shoot a real rangefinder that is digital, it's Leica or nothing, and I can afford neither the bodies nor the glass. I'm thinking of the Fuji X100F because the option of using the manual focusing patch would be very appealing to me. I just find I shoot better images if I focus manually. I'm too undisciplined using auto focus and if I don't have to take the time to focus I too often don't take the time for other necessary steps to getting a good photograph. If my circumstances improve, I'd buy a digital Leica and a couple of lenses in a heartbeat, but that is a big if, so I continue my search for the closest thing to a rangefinder experience I can get. Blah blah. Sorry for the blather. I'm afraid I'm becoming a bit of a windbag as I get older. At least at a typewriter.
If you can’t blather on an online photo forum, what’s the point of having a camera?
 
Dec 29, 2013
124
Switzerland
I still wish another digital rangefinder would come out (not rangefinder style). The Epson RD-1 is too old for me to justify paying $1000 for a used one. Right now if you want to shoot a real rangefinder that is digital, it's Leica or nothing, and I can afford neither the bodies nor the glass. I'm thinking of the Fuji X100F because the option of using the manual focusing patch would be very appealing to me. I just find I shoot better images if I focus manually. I'm too undisciplined using auto focus and if I don't have to take the time to focus I too often don't take the time for other necessary steps to getting a good photograph. If my circumstances improve, I'd buy a digital Leica and a couple of lenses in a heartbeat, but that is a big if, so I continue my search for the closest thing to a rangefinder experience I can get. Blah blah. Sorry for the blather. I'm afraid I'm becoming a bit of a windbag as I get older. At least at a typewriter.
At the moment, following the appearance of the M10-P and M10-D, you can get a M240 for under $3000 and a M9 for under $2000; glass isn't cheap, but there are also Voigtländer and Zeiss - the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar ZM, which is a fantastic performer and at the very least the equal of the Summicron 50mm f/2 (not the APO, obviously), is $800 new and $500-600 used; the same goes for my favourite M mount lens, the Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f/2.8. I know that for that kind of money, you can get a 42/45MP behemoth with the latest features and a kit zoom, but that's just not the same ... I've also seen the first M10 bodies go for under $5000, btw. More to the point, an M9 and Planar will set you pack less than a 24MP FF camera of the latest generation - below $3000, that is. You'll have all the RF experience you'll ever need and wonderful images. The M10 may be more desirable - but neither of the earlier cameras doesn't have a healthy portion of its appeal.

However, if I'd go for Fuji, the X-Pro2 with the f/2 primes (23mm, 35mm, 50mm) would be my choice over the X100F; you'll pay considerably less than for a Leica setup for a much more modern and versatile concept - yes, it's no real rangefinder, but it's a strong contender, offers the electronic RF patch as well, and it's robust and well-featured if you're not into video. To be completely honest, I've handled that camera and found it a bit light and hollow, but that's just me comparing it to film rangefinders at that time. In reality, t's sturdy, weather-sealed, offers good AF but also very good MF experience, and all that backed by impressive IQ - so, if Leica were out of the question and APS-C were an option, that's what I'd go for (I almost went that way ...). Your entry point would also be below $3000 for the body and *three* primes ...

I'll mention something else here, though: The camera that comes closest in feel and experience is the - comparatively! - frugal Panasonic GX9. It can be described in two ways: a pretty clever set of compromises between concepts - or a very compelling little camera in its own right. It feels dense and well put together in the hand, the :mu43: are wonderful, yet well priced (I adore the 15mm f/1.7, but basically, you can pick whichever you like). You can set it up to give you immediate access to MF (or use the dedicated lever to get there if you want it), MF aids are really top-notch. So, maybe that's an option ... It's actually the more modern camera than the X-Pro2, too. But of course, less appealing.

M.
 

BrianS

Super Moderator
Apr 3, 2013
124
I like my M8. I continued to use it. I shoot m8raw2dng to get full- 14-bit pixels, gives a full 1-stop advantage for ISO. I have it down where I copy the small .exe file to the SD card, convert Raw to DNG, then move the DNG files to my computer for processing in Lightroom.

A truly reliable M8...

The M8 goes for about the same as the R-D1, but is 10MPixels, 1.3x crop factor, 0.68x magnification, and has 14-bit pixels "with some effort".
 

mike3996

Veteran
Apr 2, 2018
104
However, if I'd go for Fuji, the X-Pro2 with the f/2 primes (23mm, 35mm, 50mm)

---

I'll mention something else here, though: The camera that comes closest in feel and experience is the - comparatively! - frugal Panasonic GX9.
Both cameras make so much sense but -- to paraphrase Ken Rockwell -- a real LEICA MAN is always able to find faults from the lesser cameras. :) Fuji is actually wonderful, the new fujicron lenses have good microcontrast and all that. But the focus-by-wire implementation is not the absolute best -- hence for the truest of manual focusing experiences you need leica/slr glass. Which becomes a problem with the fuji's APS-C sensor if you like to shoot wide. You're limited to 24 mm and down in focal lengths and will have harder time finding good copies of those on the cheap.

M43 should have solved a lot of problems a street shooter has. Great DOF for story telling and compact, stealthy bodies, fast autofocus if you use it. But alas, they plain forgot to implement a focus distance scale on the software. (The few Olympus lenses that have a physical distance scale, are either humongous or render very uglily, IMO.) Both Olympus and Panasonic missed the biggest opportunity... For shame!

Throw a GASsy man a camera, he'll find how it won't beat Leica wins no matter what. :(
 

BrianS

Super Moderator
Apr 3, 2013
124
I gave away my Nikkor 24~85 F3.5 VR ED IF lens today. This is the one picked up for $25, needed repair. Took 5 minutes. Everything checked out on my Nikon Df. I gave it to our secretary who is setting up a side business for photography, she is very good. It's a fine lens. I have a few AF lenses, but "reality check" - I like Manual Focus/ metal and glass/ vintage lenses that this AF-Nikkor would never get used after making sure it works properly. These days- the Leica mount is the leader for manual focus lenses, with Nikon second. I really like my Nikkor 50/1.2 Ais.

DSC_1122 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

She has an expensive Nikon lens, a 70~200/2.8 AF-VR-IF-Whatever? Fairly new. Needs a $600 repair, not under warranty. It is not focusing properly. I'm a Nikon user of 40 years, I find that embarrassing. I also gave her a 70~210/4~F5.6 AF-Nikkor to cover the range. Wish I could fix her other lens- but just no way I could work on it.

Rangefinder lenses- I can handle.

Showcase - Industar-26m, 5cm F2.8, early Tabbed version

My $9 Industar-26M on the M9. From 1957, just like me.
 

mike3996

Veteran
Apr 2, 2018
104
The M10P remains my dream camera at the moment. MP240 has been a good partner all these... damn, it's only been 4 days now. I haven't had anything to complain about it (consider also my lack of reference to other M bodies) but the EVF/live view is a bit dated. If I adapted non-M lenses on it, I don't think I'd have such a good time.* But who knows. And I'd appreciate a quieter shutter to be sure. But of course, now that it's an M-vs-M situation for me, it'll be extremely difficult to justify the upgrade.

* My use case for adapted glass: affordable telephoto options for casual landscape. Maybe affordable portrait options too. A used Leica Summilux-R 50 is 1/5th of a Summilux-M... And a Nikon 55/1.2 rivals the Noctilux in shallow DOF, for less than 1/10 of a used Noctilux. But then again, I don't do portraits at the moment.
 

BrianS

Super Moderator
Apr 3, 2013
124
The 50/1.1 Nokton is better than the Nikkor 55/1.2: I've shot them side-by-side, the Nokton is under $700.
Many great Leica mount telephoto lenses are dirt cheap: well under $100 for 135/3.5's and 90/4's. Telephoto lenses are not as popular for RF's, but I have an easier time focusing a Nikkor 8.5cm F2 on the Leica than I do with the 85/2 on the Df. The Nikkor 8.5cm F2 is ~$300, it is the lens that caught David Douglas Duncan's attention. He did not buy one- went with the Nikkor 5cm f1.5 and 13.5cm F4 instead for his Leica IIIc.
 
Nov 29, 2010
124
Melbourne, Australia
The 50/1.1 Nokton is better than the Nikkor 55/1.2
The Voigtlander 50mm f/1.1 was my go-to lens for years so I know it very well. It lived semi-permanently on my Leica which I carried everywhere with me, every day. So it was a lens that saw a lot of use over the years.

It's quite reasonably sharp wide open at f/1.1, improving from f/2, and bitingly sharp from f/4 onwards.

I've stopped using it because it has little screws around the barrel that holds the lens together, and over time they get loose to the point where the front half of the lens starts coming away from the back half. I would tighten it with those micro-screwdrivers but they will invariably start coming loose again. I even sent it away to the Voigtlander HQ in Japan for a CLA, it came back in top shape but about 5 months later the screws started to get loose again. I finally gave up on it last year because it was affecting the ability of this lens to focus.

I've since bought the new Voigtlander 50mm f/1.2, the design of this new lens is a lot more solid. There are no screws on the barrel now, and the IQ from this lens is visibly better than the f/1.1. AND another major bonus is that its minimum focusing distance is 0.7m, that makes a huge difference. The f/1.1 was 1m.

I want to add that after I stopped using the f/1.1, I pre-ordered f/1.2 but it wouldn't arrive for months. So I used my backup 50 - the Canon 50mm LTM f/1.4 - that's a fantastic lens too. The only gripe I have with it is that its light/sun flares is a bit of a hit-n-miss. When it misses, the flare is harsh and intrusive.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom