Basic M10 questions

[presspass]

I am considering a used M10. I have an M8 and it does what it's supposed to, but it's the only digital M I have ever owned. I do like older M and even adapted LTM lenses - are there any that will not work or work well with an M10? I'm thinking about goggled lenses as well - I have the 135 2.8 and the closeup goggles for the 90 Elmar Macro. Will these work with an M10?/ Anything else I should look for? Thanks,

 

[lukitas]

According to LUF, the goggled Summicron DR works on the m10.
However, as the flange of the m10 is slightly wider, the goggles sit a little further from the windows. I wonder if that has an incidence on the rangefinder, or the enlargement in the viewfinder.

cheers

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I am considering a used M10. I have an M8 and it does what it's supposed to, but it's the only digital M I have ever owned. I do like older M and even adapted LTM lenses - are there any that will not work or work well with an M10? I'm thinking about goggled lenses as well - I have the 135 2.8 and the closeup goggles for the 90 Elmar Macro. Will these work with an M10?/ Anything else I should look for? Thanks,

Goggled M lenses should work on the M10. I personally used a goggled 135mm Elmarit f/2.8 on mine for a short time. It worked fine. Word is, however, not all Leica M lenses are compatible on the M10, including the DR Summicron (which won't mount properly on an M6 either). There are a handful of others - Google it.

All I can say is that if you like the M8, you'll absolutely love the M10.

 

[f.hayek]

Never had an M8 but did have an M9. The M10 (P-version especially), has a whisper-shutter reminiscent of film M's and the size and ergonomics of an M6 in-hand. It is generations beyond the M8 & M9 and their whirring cacophony after each exposure. Both were more "proof of concept" (i.e., digital M) than 'fully baked' devices. The M10 manages every M and LTM lens I have, with grace. If you can swing it, the M10-P has a touch-screen menu and an incomparable shutter, quiter still than the M10.

 

[boojum]

Never had an M8 but did have an M9. The M10 (P-version especially), has a whisper-shutter reminiscent of film M's and the size and ergonomics of an M6 in-hand. It is generations beyond the M8 & M9 and their whirring cacophony after each exposure. Both were more "proof of concept" (i.e., digital M) than 'fully baked' devices. The M10 manages every M and LTM lens I have, with grace. If you can swing it, the M10-P has a touch-screen menu and an incomparable shutter, quiter still than the M10.

All of what you say is true. You neglected the part of what photos are about, the image itself. M8 and M9 are CCD. I much prefer it and do not mind shutter sounds. Shutter sounds? Really? You won't hear that shutter when you are looking at the image. It is ephemeral, the image is permanent. Make your choice.

"That place is so crowded that no one goes there anymore." Yogi Berra

 

[Darthfeeble]

I've had an M8, never seemed to feel that it was competent. I had several M9s, they kept me coming back. I have just recently gotten an M10 and I am very impressed with the improvements but I agree that the CCD sensor made images that approached magic sometimes. That said, I'll be sticking with the M10, it is a more competent tool.

 

[boojum]

I've had an M8, never seemed to feel that it was competent. I had several M9s, they kept me coming back. I have just recently gotten an M10 and I am very impressed with the improvements but I agree that the CCD sensor made images that approached magic sometimes. That said, I'll be sticking with the M10, it is a more competent tool.

For what purpose?

That was kind of snippy so I will amend it to say I can put up with the minor foibles of an M8 or M9 to get the superb images. To give up those images for real or imagined improvements I cannot do. The shutter bothers neither my subjects nor me. My M240's are close but close does not win the race, does it? The shutter is close to the photographer but distant from the subject. I have my misgivings about the insufferable arrogance of Wetzlar and the Leica fan-boys but those CCD sensors do do the job. The Pixii, but again close does not win the race. There's first place and nowhere.

 

[Godfrey]

I've had M9, M-P240, M-D262, now M10-M. They all work(ed) fine, but I never liked the poor responsiveness or JPEG rendering of the M9. The 240 and 262 models were much better cameras, and I preferred their JPEG rendering. The M10 Monochrom is way past those in every way, unless color is what you're after, and then I'd take an M10-R.

Leica lists what lenses do not work on the website, maybe in the manual.. most m-mount lenses work fine.

G

 

[boojum]

<snip>

The 240 and 262 models were much better cameras

<snip>

That covers a lot of territory and is pretty vague. I am going to guess you are saying you liked them better.

 

[Godfrey]

The 240 and 262 models were much better cameras

That covers a lot of territory and is pretty vague. I am going to guess you are saying you liked them better.

You and I have conversed enough, and you have certainly read enough of my blatherings on this forum, that you should recognize that I never say "I like something" without being able to articulate clear, concrete reasons why I said that.

The 240 and 262 versions of the Leica M improved on the M9 in many ways, some of which included ...

- a sensor with better sensitivity and better dynamic range at base ISO, and less noise as ISO is increased
- improved responsiveness of the shutter release
- a quieter shutter, and the elimination of the slow, noisy shutter recock cycle
- improved layout of the menus and commands
- better ergonomics in the shape and positioning of the discrete controls (thumbwheel, four-way pad, etc)
- vastly improved battery, with more storage capacity, more exposures per charge
- sensor improvements that effected improved imaging qualities with a wider range of lens designs (less falloff, less color shifting, etc)
- structurally more secure tripod mount (the M9 tripod mount is a part of the base plate, the later bodies tripod mount is part of the body structure independent of the base plate)
- improved rangefinder optics and clarity
- for the 240 model, additional Live View and other features that prove useful for many niche uses (lens adaptability, close up and extreme telephoto work, more metering options, etc)
- a usable JPEG engine without the weird color casts of the M9 JPEG rendering

... amongst others.

Yes, I "like" the 240 and 262 series M bodies much more than the M9. They are, simply, much better performing cameras, and I like that. Because of that, I shed no tears when my M9 sensor failed and I was offered the option to upgrade to the 240 model at a modest price.

The M10 model improves upon the 240 and 262 yet again in quite a few significant ways, which is one of the reasons I now have an M10 Monochrom.

G

 

[presspass]

Thanks for the responses. I have ordered an M10-p and should have it by the end of the week. The purpose is digital photos for a weekly newspaper; I have been using Canon DSLR cameras and lenses and, when I don't want to carry that load, an M8 with lenses. One final question - is there a way to attach the Visoflex lenses made for M cameras to an M10? I can use a Viso III body without a finder as a spacer, but is there a more elegant solution? Thanks again.

 

[keytarjunkie]

Thanks for the responses. I have ordered an M10-p and should have it by the end of the week. The purpose is digital photos for a weekly newspaper; I have been using Canon DSLR cameras and lenses and, when I don't want to carry that load, an M8 with lenses. One final question - is there a way to attach the Visoflex lenses made for M cameras to an M10? I can use a Viso III body without a finder as a spacer, but is there a more elegant solution? Thanks again.

There are probably several adapters, but this is the one I would get - https://shop.cameraquest.com/leica-...lex-lens-to-leica-m-camera-body-lens-adapter/

 

[boojum]

You and I have conversed enough, and you have certainly read enough of my blatherings on this forum, that you should recognize that I never say "I like something" without being able to articulate clear, concrete reasons why I said that.

The 240 and 262 versions of the Leica M improved on the M9 in many ways, some of which included ...

- a sensor with better sensitivity and better dynamic range at base ISO, and less noise as ISO is increased
- improved responsiveness of the shutter release
- a quieter shutter, and the elimination of the slow, noisy shutter recock cycle
- improved layout of the menus and commands
- better ergonomics in the shape and positioning of the discrete controls (thumbwheel, four-way pad, etc)
- vastly improved battery, with more storage capacity, more exposures per charge
- sensor improvements that effected improved imaging qualities with a wider range of lens designs (less falloff, less color shifting, etc)
- structurally more secure tripod mount (the M9 tripod mount is a part of the base plate, the later bodies tripod mount is part of the body structure independent of the base plate)
- improved rangefinder optics and clarity
- for the 240 model, additional Live View and other features that prove useful for many niche uses (lens adaptability, close up and extreme telephoto work, more metering options, etc)
- a usable JPEG engine without the weird color casts of the M9 JPEG rendering

... amongst others.

Yes, I "like" the 240 and 262 series M bodies much more than the M9. They are, simply, much better performing cameras, and I like that. Because of that, I shed no tears when my M9 sensor failed and I was offered the option to upgrade to the 240 model at a modest price.

The M10 model improves upon the 240 and 262 yet again in quite a few significant ways, which is one of the reasons I now have an M10 Monochrom.

G

Well, that is a lengthy response. I like the M9, prefer it, for image quality. I have compared JPG to DNG and the difference is detail in those I have compared, not color accuracy. The JPG is a compressed image which accounts for less detail. I am at a loss as to why folks complain about M9 JPG's but will compare some more. Bottom line, you are happy with your camera and I with mine. ;o)

 

[Beemermark]

You and I have conversed enough, and you have certainly read enough of my blatherings on this forum, that you should recognize that I never say "I like something" without being able to articulate clear, concrete reasons why I said that.

The 240 and 262 versions of the Leica M improved on the M9 in many ways, some of which included ...

- a sensor with better sensitivity and better dynamic range at base ISO, and less noise as ISO is increased
- improved responsiveness of the shutter release
- a quieter shutter, and the elimination of the slow, noisy shutter recock cycle
- improved layout of the menus and commands
- better ergonomics in the shape and positioning of the discrete controls (thumbwheel, four-way pad, etc)
- vastly improved battery, with more storage capacity, more exposures per charge
- sensor improvements that effected improved imaging qualities with a wider range of lens designs (less falloff, less color shifting, etc)
- structurally more secure tripod mount (the M9 tripod mount is a part of the base plate, the later bodies tripod mount is part of the body structure independent of the base plate)
- improved rangefinder optics and clarity
- for the 240 model, additional Live View and other features that prove useful for many niche uses (lens adaptability, close up and extreme telephoto work, more metering options, etc)
- a usable JPEG engine without the weird color casts of the M9 JPEG rendering

... amongst others.

Yes, I "like" the 240 and 262 series M bodies much more than the M9. They are, simply, much better performing cameras, and I like that. Because of that, I shed no tears when my M9 sensor failed and I was offered the option to upgrade to the 240 model at a modest price.

The M10 model improves upon the 240 and 262 yet again in quite a few significant ways, which is one of the reasons I now have an M10 Monochrom.

G

I like my M4, quiet, strong, battery last for ever (50 years now I think), great VF&RF. Joking aside, I can't argue with your list but would almost recommend to buy the newest model you can afford. I had an M8 (1st digital camera) but could never get used to the smaller sensor with Leica lenses -esp., wide angle. Don't remember the crop factor but when your widest lens, that you really like, is a 21mm and now it's something like a 28mm or 30mm. After replacing the sensor in my M9 I decided I would never buy another Leica digital camera. Just too much money for what you get. There are just too many fantastic full frame digital cameras that accept lenses as good or better than Leica at 1/3 the price. Hearsay I know but having used Leica for more than 40 years I'll never be buying a another one.

 

[Godfrey]

I like my M4, quiet, strong, battery last for ever (50 years now I think), great VF&RF. Joking aside, I can't argue with your list but would almost recommend to buy the newest model you can afford. I had an M8 (1st digital camera) but could never get used to the smaller sensor with Leica lenses -esp., wide angle. Don't remember the crop factor but when your widest lens, that you really like, is a 21mm and now it's something like a 28mm or 30mm. After replacing the sensor in my M9 I decided I would never buy another Leica digital camera. Just too much money for what you get. There are just too many fantastic full frame digital cameras that accept lenses as good or better than Leica at 1/3 the price. Hearsay I know but having used Leica for more than 40 years I'll never be buying a another one.

I'm quite fond of my M4-2, pretty much the same battery life as your M4. And the same viewfinder optics. I've had an M6 and M6TTL, the built in meter is handy, but I've been estimating exposure for so many years it's mostly irrelevant. I've had this particular M4-2 for a decade and it always works perfectly, basically just needed a cleaning when I got it.

The M9's sensor problem killed mine*, but I have no regrets about buying either the M-P240 or the M-D262 after it. All excellent cameras. Same goes for the M10 Monochrom I bought this past Spring: in many ways, it's the best of the lot so far. I presume the M10-P and M10-R to be quite similar, albeit with color sensors. I get my money's worth out of the Leica cameras ... while I can't afford every nice shiny object in the lineup I like, I don't feel offended by the prices. Few to none of my other cameras have lasted so long in my use over the past sixty years.

* Note: I capture raw files only with all my cameras, so the M9's weird JPEG engine never really got in my way. But other details about the M9 were bothersome and got in my way. The 240, 262, and M10 eliminated those problems and have never had any sensor (or other!) problems. They just work.

I'm happy with the M10 Monochrom. If someone else is happy with their M9, well, I'm not judging anything about that. Just show me photos. 🙂

Lily - Santa Clara 2022
M10 Monochrom + Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm
ISO 400 @ f/8 @ 1/90
​

Enjoy! G :angel:

 

[boojum]

I'm quite fond of my M4-2, pretty much the same battery life as your M4. And the same viewfinder optics. I've had an M6 and M6TTL, the built in meter is handy, but I've been estimating exposure for so many years it's mostly irrelevant. I've had this particular M4-2 for a decade and it always works perfectly, basically just needed a cleaning when I got it.

The M9's sensor problem killed mine*, but I have no regrets about buying either the M-P240 or the M-D262 after it. All excellent cameras. Same goes for the M10 Monochrom I bought this past Spring: in many ways, it's the best of the lot so far. I presume the M10-P and M10-R to be quite similar, albeit with color sensors. I get my money's worth out of the Leica cameras ... while I can't afford every nice shiny object in the lineup I like, I don't feel offended by the prices. Few to none of my other cameras have lasted so long in my use over the past sixty years.

* Note: I capture raw files only with all my cameras, so the M9's weird JPEG engine never really got in my way. But other details about the M9 were bothersome and got in my way. The 240, 262, and M10 eliminated those problems and have never had any sensor (or other!) problems. They just work.

I'm happy with the M10 Monochrom. If someone else is happy with their M9, well, I'm not judging anything about that. Just show me photos. 🙂

Lily - Santa Clara 2022
M10 Monochrom + Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm
ISO 400 @ f/8 @ 1/90​

Enjoy! G :angel:

https://flic.kr/p/2nmS3hn

 

[Godfrey]

Well, that is a lengthy response. I like the M9, prefer it, for image quality. I have compared JPG to DNG and the difference is detail in those I have compared, not color accuracy. The JPG is a compressed image which accounts for less detail. I am at a loss as to why folks complain about M9 JPG's but will compare some more. Bottom line, you are happy with your camera and I with mine. ;o)

(bolded) It's a minor point: You can't compare JPG to DNG without converting the DNG to some RGB format ... a DNG file contains raw image data, not a finished rendering. And there are plenty of options for converting M9 DNG files that can certainly do better than the tiny image processing computer inside an M9 body.

I don't complain about the M9 JPEGs, I just find the M9 colors odd and unusable. I never use anything but raw captures anyway.

... And I do bet that if I put 40 M9 photos on the wall with 40 M240/262 or M10 photos, you would be hard pressed to tell me what camera produced which of them. (I've done this in the past, with a group of experienced and opinionated Leica M owners. Only one in 20 guesses as to which of the photos were made by the M9 proved correct.

G

"Equipment is transitory. Photographs endure."

 

[boojum]

(bolded) It's a minor point: You can't compare JPG to DNG without converting the DNG to some RGB format ... a DNG file contains raw image data, not a finished rendering. And there are plenty of options for converting M9 DNG files that can certainly do better than the tiny image processing computer inside an M9 body.

I don't complain about the M9 JPEGs, I just find the M9 colors odd and unusable. I never use anything but raw captures anyway.

... And I do bet that if I put 40 M9 photos on the wall with 40 M240/262 or M10 photos, you would be hard pressed to tell me what camera produced which of them. (I've done this in the past, with a group of experienced and opinionated Leica M owners. Only one in 20 guesses as to which of the photos were made by the M9 proved correct.

G

"Equipment is transitory. Photographs endure."

Well, I am not sure of what you are talking about in converting DNG's. I opened the DNG in Darktable and the JPG in GIMP and viewed them side by side. Other than minor detail loss, due to JPG compression I'd guess, I found the two images pretty much the same if not completely the same. So if they appear the same, . . . And I do not know about you but out where I come from saying something is odd and unusable is usually perceived as a complaint. It's damned sure not flattery. But let's not get tangled in semantics.

And while you may very well be able to post 20 or 40 pairs of DNG and JPG images that are difficult to separate the fact that they can be separated and that the CCD is superior is what this is all about. Most of the time the differences will be minimal at best. Others, and these are the ones I am talking about, the differences are distinct.

With cameras as with so many things in life we are dealing with a list of variables. We prioritize the variables. I am opting for consistent color and image quality as the prime attribute. Just as we might disagree on the best Osso Bucco in Santa Clara. And I bet they would both be great. Mangia, mangia, you too t'in anyway. ;o)

 

[Godfrey]

Well, I am not sure of what you are talking about in converting DNG's. I opened the DNG in Darktable and the JPG in GIMP and viewed them side by side. Other than minor detail loss, due to JPG compression I'd guess, I found the two images pretty much the same if not completely the same. So if they appear the same, . . . And I do not know about you but out where I come from saying something is odd and unusable is usually perceived as a complaint. It's damned sure not flattery. But let's not get tangled in semantics.

And while you may very well be able to post 20 or 40 pairs of DNG and JPG images that are difficult to separate the fact that they can be separated and that the CCD is superior is what this is all about. Most of the time the differences will be minimal at best. Others, and these are the ones I am talking about, the differences are distinct.

With cameras as with so many things in life we are dealing with a list of variables. We prioritize the variables. I am opting for consistent color and image quality as the prime attribute. Just as we might disagree on the best Osso Bucco in Santa Clara. And I bet they would both be great. Mangia, mangia, you too t'in anyway. ;o)

- Darktable is a raw converter. By opening a DNG file in Darktable, you are converting raw data to an RGB displayable form.
- GIMP is an application capable of displaying RGB organized image data. A JPEG is a rendered and compressed RGB image, so GIMP displays it.
- The fact that they show nearly the same crappy color simply means that the defective nature of the M9 color map is being used to render the raw data in a very similar way.

NOWHERE did I say that the images of one type of sensor were superior to the other. I said that they were for all intents and purposes indistinguishable. If you want to fantasize that the old sensor is superior in some way, well, enjoy your fantasy. I'll take 4 to 5 stops more sensitivity, dynamic range, and improved lens compatibility over illusory "better" rendering qualities any day.

The differences between these devices are not distinctions based on taste or flavor preference. The distinctions between these sensors, and these cameras, are facts provable by objective measurement. If you like the older camera and find its defects are charming to you, well, there's nothing wrong with that. I happen to like lots of old things that have various defects, and find them charming. But I'd never call them "better" ... I'd call them "pleasing to me" or I'd say "They match my visualization of a scene better than some others do."

G

 

[boojum]

Perhaps this wil help: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/4799255/page3#post4799978