Axel
singleshooter
Yes.
And it´s not the shape or the brand of the tool that I use what influences my shots.
Leica and rangefinder photography with the M6 (CLs, FSUs) influenced my way of taking photos around 30 years of my life.
Today it would be nice to go with a digital M body and a cron but that would have nothing to do with my photography.
There was a time, long ago, where the rangefinder gave a visual option to me no other system did. I still like it but
could or would I give a miss to an EVF or a tilting display today?
No.
There are many cameras that can do respectable photos with various focal lengths, panoramas, video... which are not the
half in weight and size of an M body actually.
That´s the fact in 2018. Leicas are fine and Jags are fine and a good wine is
anyway. The question to afford one of them or all and more is an individual one. If it comes to the decision to buy
you shouldn´t discuss - just decide.
My 5cent.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
After meandering around, Puts asks three questions:
1. Why do we photograph?
2. Why use a Leica camera?
3. What and how do we photograph?
Question 1 is camera independent. Questions 2 and 3 are out of order. Contrary to Puts's assertion, these questions do not require new answers. Question 3 informs Question 2, and Question 2 has been beaten to death. I can recite the answers to Question 2 in my sleep, and so can Bill (and most everyone here). The reasons do not bear repeating. Doing so would not help Bill in his dilemma.
Bill's question is different than Puts's questions. It is: Do I buy an M10? The answer is a two part question: Will an M10 make him a better photographer or make his images better? At this stage of his career and development, it is unlikely an M10 will make Bill a better photographer. He has been shooting Leicas for decades and is already highly skilled. So for Bill, it is the little things. Because its is slightly smaller than its predecessors, its ergonomics are better, and it handles more like a film M. That may be enough. The image quality is only marginally better than a 240 et seq. Without knowing what digital M he is currently shooting, it is hard to gauge how much his images will improve with an M10. Only Bill knows his financial position and can decide whether the improvements are worth the price to him. All the blathering on about why we do or do not use Leicas is of no import.
In the end, the reason Bill is having a hard time making a decision is because reason says no and emotion says yes. His real question is: Do I splurge? I mean by the time he sells his current digital M, we are really only talking about $3000-$4000, and he can write it off. Not chump change but, given his investment in Leica film bodies and Leica lenses, also not a lot of money. Also, unless they put a 42MP sensor in the M11, it is not likely to be much of improvement over the M10. The M10 is just about perfect as is, DxO score notwithstanding.
1. Why do we photograph?
2. Why use a Leica camera?
3. What and how do we photograph?
Question 1 is camera independent. Questions 2 and 3 are out of order. Contrary to Puts's assertion, these questions do not require new answers. Question 3 informs Question 2, and Question 2 has been beaten to death. I can recite the answers to Question 2 in my sleep, and so can Bill (and most everyone here). The reasons do not bear repeating. Doing so would not help Bill in his dilemma.
Bill's question is different than Puts's questions. It is: Do I buy an M10? The answer is a two part question: Will an M10 make him a better photographer or make his images better? At this stage of his career and development, it is unlikely an M10 will make Bill a better photographer. He has been shooting Leicas for decades and is already highly skilled. So for Bill, it is the little things. Because its is slightly smaller than its predecessors, its ergonomics are better, and it handles more like a film M. That may be enough. The image quality is only marginally better than a 240 et seq. Without knowing what digital M he is currently shooting, it is hard to gauge how much his images will improve with an M10. Only Bill knows his financial position and can decide whether the improvements are worth the price to him. All the blathering on about why we do or do not use Leicas is of no import.
In the end, the reason Bill is having a hard time making a decision is because reason says no and emotion says yes. His real question is: Do I splurge? I mean by the time he sells his current digital M, we are really only talking about $3000-$4000, and he can write it off. Not chump change but, given his investment in Leica film bodies and Leica lenses, also not a lot of money. Also, unless they put a 42MP sensor in the M11, it is not likely to be much of improvement over the M10. The M10 is just about perfect as is, DxO score notwithstanding.
mcfingon
Western Australia
I think if you enjoy the continuity with the past of rangefinder image-making that Leica offers, then the decision to buy an M10 will be rewarding. I have used a Sony A7S and own some of the Sony/Zeiss lenses for it, and have been disappointed with the lack of longevity in their mechanical design. They are mechanically a consumer electronic product, and even if the Zeiss-designed glass is excellent, will still end up on the rubbish heap far too early for my liking. The Leica lenses I have are made to last longer, as are the Zeiss ZM lenses designed for the Leica M mount.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Other than the lens mount not being metal, have you had mechanical issues with your A7S. I have not heard about any on the forums. Subsequent models may have better handling and features, but I thought those were all on the electronic side.
LCSmith
Well-known
Puts posits:
One thinks of something Laszlo Moholy-Nagy said in 1936:
Regarding the digital M's, I gave them an honest try. As beautiful as they are as objects, in use they seemed to me like muddled machines trying to be two things at once. The only practical reason I fathom for using a digital M is to be able to use the wide-angle Leica lenses. Of course, many people make beautiful images with their digital M's; but for me the user experience is awkward. Being an amateur, user experience is important to me.
If I want to make digital pictures, I use my phone. My phone is supremely suited for making digital pictures.
If I want to make film pictures, I use my Leica Ms. My Leica Ms are supremely suited for making film pictures.
One thinks of something Laszlo Moholy-Nagy said in 1936:
Regarding the digital M's, I gave them an honest try. As beautiful as they are as objects, in use they seemed to me like muddled machines trying to be two things at once. The only practical reason I fathom for using a digital M is to be able to use the wide-angle Leica lenses. Of course, many people make beautiful images with their digital M's; but for me the user experience is awkward. Being an amateur, user experience is important to me.
If I want to make digital pictures, I use my phone. My phone is supremely suited for making digital pictures.
If I want to make film pictures, I use my Leica Ms. My Leica Ms are supremely suited for making film pictures.
LCSmith
Well-known
A relevant anecdote:
A friend who has an M10 showed me some pictures recently which he took with the M10 and the 28mm 2.8 Elmarit ASPH. They looked like iPhone pictures, which is not surprising given the focal length. This should be instructive.
A friend who has an M10 showed me some pictures recently which he took with the M10 and the 28mm 2.8 Elmarit ASPH. They looked like iPhone pictures, which is not surprising given the focal length. This should be instructive.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Assuming you like the aspect ratio and 28mm focal length, you can hold your phone steady, and you only need small prints. I made a beautiful platinum/palladium print from an image my steady-handed daughter took with an iPhone, but it is only 6"x9". I would not use an iPhone for my regular work, so I think the modifier "supremely" may be a bit overstated.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
People gotta spend their $$ on something..why not Leica.....or maybe...another ..Rolex...lol..
cz23
-
For folks who have a lot of dough or a little dough, the choice is usually pretty easy.
It's the inbetweeners that wrestle with whether or not the stretch is worth it.
John
LCSmith
Well-known
To be sure, for professional or serious portrait photographers or sports photographers or landscape photographers the iPhone isn't going to cut it; but I'm neither serious nor professional. I make casual, observational digital photographs (like most Leica users, I'm guessing). And when it comes to digital, the iPhone is actually quite good and will only get better. I'm not an iPhone apologist or a Leica digital M detractor. I'm just giving my opinion.
LCSmith
Well-known
Completely agree. I totally get the Leica as a status symbol; and for a lot of people, status symbols are important. When you make partner you have to trade in the old Beamer. I get it.
Axel
singleshooter
Out to Lunch
Ventor
[FONT="]When reading Puts's May blog, also read this March entry: https://photo.imx.nl/blog/files/ee742b94bc81e9f3a5e0be5fa260f55a-93.html At least for now, Puts is unable to answer his own questions.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
robert blu
quiet photographer
I went for the M10 because for me is the only digital camera I can use in the way I used the M7...after one year I confirm to be fully satisfied
robert
PS: of course I'm not a pro photographer...
robert
PS: of course I'm not a pro photographer...
:: Mark
Well-known
In use I find the M10 an almost exact clone of the M7. The handling and the controls are almost identical, the main exceptions being the ISO selection dial and the louder (but faster) shutter.
Yet I much prefer to use the M7 over the M10. This is because a digital sensor has a hard highlight clipping hazard, and it is too easy for small exposure errors to result in exposure errors that would not be an issue for an analogue camera. Even some of the RAW samples on Leica’s site show this, with colour shifts in the sky due to progressive over exposure.
In part this is also because image quality expectations for a full-frame digital camera are set by the best in class offerings from Sony/Nikon. To meet that a digital M would need not just higher resolution, but also better dynamic range and a better default metering system that makes ETTL exposures much easier (reliable) than at present.
I personally take the point of view that a digital M only makes sense if you are already heavily invested in Leica and want to make use of existing lenses. If you are not already invested, look at something different such as the SL or A7RIII - they have excellent native lenses and can also take an adapted Noctilux if you really want something uniquely Leica.
On the comparison with smaller sensor cameras and phones, if you only shoot in good light and use lenses stopped down there is zero value in any full-frame (or larger) sensor. Smaller sensors usually have newer and more capable technology than Leica’s relatively dated FF offering, so unless shallow DOF is your thing you will not see any significant improvement in image quality. My 20MP u4/3 Olympus easily matches the M10 for image quality even with (the admittedly good) pro zooms - it gets a boost from the image stabilisation and intelligent metering that maximise the results possible from the sensor.
cz23
-
That's not at all what I was suggesting. Some of us prefer digital Ms for reasons that have nothing to do with the hackneyed status stereotype. But their high cost creates the dilemma Bill raises.
John
ptpdprinter
Veteran
There are only three reasons to buy a digital Leica: 1) you prefer a rangefinder camera and Leica is the only game in town; 2) you have a significant investment in Leica lenses (a subset of 1); or 3) you want to buy a status symbol. The people who comprise 1) and 2) are a small niche of photographers in general. The people who comprise 3) are a large segment of people with more money than sense. Group 3) makes Leica possible for groups 1) and 2). God bless them.
JeffS7444
Well-known
I've posted links to this book elsewhere, but it's still relevant as ever:
https://www.shambhala.com/hooked-745.html
One thing which really has helped to tame some of my new-toy urges is realizing that that no matter what I buy today, sooner or later I'm going to crave something else. It happened when I owned a Leica M8 and 9, so why should the M10 be any different? But as they say, YMMV.
https://www.shambhala.com/hooked-745.html
One thing which really has helped to tame some of my new-toy urges is realizing that that no matter what I buy today, sooner or later I'm going to crave something else. It happened when I owned a Leica M8 and 9, so why should the M10 be any different? But as they say, YMMV.
LCSmith
Well-known
I get it. What can I say, the digital Ms don’t feel at all like film Ms to me. To each her own.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Bill,
I likely would not have gotten into shooting digital if it were not for Leica creating the Monochrom. I was perfectly happy as a B&W film only die-hard, but Leica built the perfect digital camera for me to set the hook. The expense was offset because I already was shooting Leica M's and I already had good glass. I still shoot film BTW.
I had my Monochrom's sensor replaced and in my case I was told 10 weeks and my actual time was 12 weeks. I considered about taking the upgrade route to a M-246, but I loved my MM warts and all because I had grown fond of it. In every way the M-246 is a more advanced camera, faster, better high ISO, better dynamic range, smoother roll off, even more shadow detail...
So why the romance for the basic and primitive MM? Well I like the MM because it is a basic crude camera, and I think the CCD sensor has a unique rendering that has a richer midrange that better allows me to resemble larger format cameras because I print big.
If we count the bits, the MM is 14-bit but only 18 MP; and the M-246 is only 12-bit but a larger 24 MP. As far as files go the 288 MB files from the M-246 is not that much bigger than the MM's 252 MB files.
So I bought a Nikon D3X and tried to like it to shoot color for my gal's fashion blog. I'm an old Nikon SLR guy but I hated the Nikon digital experience. I hated the anti alias filter that blured my inages to prevent moire. I hated that the autofocus rarely really nailed the focus and the camera offered too many features I would never use.
So I looked into the Leica SL. Now we are talking 14-bit and 24 MP. I bought my SL about a year ahead from where the 50 Lux-SL was available, so I shot with manual focus 50's like the 50 Lux-R "E60" and a 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor. These lenses I already owned were another reason to buy the SL. The 50 Lux-SL initially had poor AF performance, it was accurate and pig slow, but Leica came out with zippy new firmware and that issue went away. Love how weatherproof the SL is as well as the weatherproofing of the 50 Lux-SL.
So I was looking far ahead when I bought the SL and I am mucho happy. I also realized the progression here. From Leica "S" to SL the same processor and much of the design. When I compare my SL to a M10 there is a very strong resemblance in design. 24 MP; 14-bit; Maestro processor borrowed from the Leica "S"
So I don't think I'm too far off saying that I'm shooting a mirrorless M10 that has autofocus abilities and advanced weather sealing. No M10 for me, I made my decision a few years ago. I don't disagree it is not compact or lightweight like a M. The 50 Lux-SL is likely the largest and heaviest small format normal lens ever made and it has its haters, but the rendering and the performance is worth it.
So I made my expensive decision about three years ago.
Most recently I made an "inexpensive" decision. I bought a Leica CL. Another very basic camera that is ASP-C. Buying the CL creates a wonderful 75 Lux out of the 50 Lux-R "E60." The Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 becomes a crazy 87/1.2 that is insane and so much fun to use. I use my 28 Cron-M and it is a 42mm Cron to be just like an original CL.
Again I recycle the legacy glass that I use on my film cameras.
Cal
I likely would not have gotten into shooting digital if it were not for Leica creating the Monochrom. I was perfectly happy as a B&W film only die-hard, but Leica built the perfect digital camera for me to set the hook. The expense was offset because I already was shooting Leica M's and I already had good glass. I still shoot film BTW.
I had my Monochrom's sensor replaced and in my case I was told 10 weeks and my actual time was 12 weeks. I considered about taking the upgrade route to a M-246, but I loved my MM warts and all because I had grown fond of it. In every way the M-246 is a more advanced camera, faster, better high ISO, better dynamic range, smoother roll off, even more shadow detail...
So why the romance for the basic and primitive MM? Well I like the MM because it is a basic crude camera, and I think the CCD sensor has a unique rendering that has a richer midrange that better allows me to resemble larger format cameras because I print big.
If we count the bits, the MM is 14-bit but only 18 MP; and the M-246 is only 12-bit but a larger 24 MP. As far as files go the 288 MB files from the M-246 is not that much bigger than the MM's 252 MB files.
So I bought a Nikon D3X and tried to like it to shoot color for my gal's fashion blog. I'm an old Nikon SLR guy but I hated the Nikon digital experience. I hated the anti alias filter that blured my inages to prevent moire. I hated that the autofocus rarely really nailed the focus and the camera offered too many features I would never use.
So I looked into the Leica SL. Now we are talking 14-bit and 24 MP. I bought my SL about a year ahead from where the 50 Lux-SL was available, so I shot with manual focus 50's like the 50 Lux-R "E60" and a 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor. These lenses I already owned were another reason to buy the SL. The 50 Lux-SL initially had poor AF performance, it was accurate and pig slow, but Leica came out with zippy new firmware and that issue went away. Love how weatherproof the SL is as well as the weatherproofing of the 50 Lux-SL.
So I was looking far ahead when I bought the SL and I am mucho happy. I also realized the progression here. From Leica "S" to SL the same processor and much of the design. When I compare my SL to a M10 there is a very strong resemblance in design. 24 MP; 14-bit; Maestro processor borrowed from the Leica "S"
So I don't think I'm too far off saying that I'm shooting a mirrorless M10 that has autofocus abilities and advanced weather sealing. No M10 for me, I made my decision a few years ago. I don't disagree it is not compact or lightweight like a M. The 50 Lux-SL is likely the largest and heaviest small format normal lens ever made and it has its haters, but the rendering and the performance is worth it.
So I made my expensive decision about three years ago.
Most recently I made an "inexpensive" decision. I bought a Leica CL. Another very basic camera that is ASP-C. Buying the CL creates a wonderful 75 Lux out of the 50 Lux-R "E60." The Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 becomes a crazy 87/1.2 that is insane and so much fun to use. I use my 28 Cron-M and it is a 42mm Cron to be just like an original CL.
Again I recycle the legacy glass that I use on my film cameras.
Cal