Comparing M10 with M-D typ 262

Godfrey

somewhat colored
Local time
8:36 AM
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
13,152
I was in Leica Store - San Francisco yesterday to see the M10 in person (the real M10... not the M typ 240 :cool:). I had my M-D typ 262 with me to compare key differences.

The M10 is impressively slimmer in feel than the M-P but not so much slimmer in the hand compared to the M-D. A little bit, yes. The protrusion of the control bits and the LCD on the M10 is a little less intrusive than on the M-P but at least to my hands it has nowhere near the handling comfort of the M-D. Such is the price of having the display and buttons, I guess. It's not without merit but I still like the feel of the M-D more.

The viewfinder on the M10, however, is a revelation. Finally an M viewfinder that I can see all the frame lines from 28mm to 135 easily and comfortably, with my glasses on! The focusing patch is nicely a bit larger due to the magnification, making it easier to focus, and I can for the very first time see something outside of the 28mm frames. Frankly, when Leica introduces an "M-D10" model, it will be very difficult to resist it for this viewfinder alone.

I didn't spend too much time looking at the M10 ... the viewfinder difference was my biggest interest ... but the new, simpler menu structure and buttons are nice, the simplified on/off switch is much more to my liking than the off/single/continuous/self switch on the older models, and the M10's ISO dial is welcome but would take a little getting used to. I prefer the M-D's rear-mounted thumb dial for ISO setting, it works more ergonomically for my fingers, but of course is impossible with a big LCD on the back of the camera. I didn't make any exposures with the camera (no card in it...) but fired the shutter a few times: sounds almost identical to the M-D to my ears.

That's about it ... I liked the M10 very much, but will wait for Leica to produce an M-D version of it. I want that version of the optical viewfinder, but won't give up the handling feel and utter simplicity of the M-D for it.

G
 
Just thinking about this a bit - a slightly less 'pure' M-D with live view via the EVF, but without an LCD on the camera, would be interesting. I would consider it.

Doubt it will happen.
 
Interesting observations, Godfrey, thanks... I have not seen an M10 yet but it seems attractive, and that viewfinder change is what most impresses me, as I've always had difficulty with wide framelines. Maybe just as well I don't live near a Leica dealer, closest one about 2 hours away... ;)
 
I wear glasses and not getting any younger. The view finder upgrade with Godfrey's quick review has me thinking real hard about upgrading from my M-E.
 
Thanks for your observations, but you're not helping. Luckily (or unluckily) I don't have the money burning a hole in my pocket.

I look forward to an M-D version though. More than any other new camera for a long time.

Regarding the ISO dial, on the M-D it took up the electronic space let by the screen. It's current placement would allow a future M10-D to be very slim...
 
The Weight

The Weight

Godfrey,
After looking at one of these myself, last week, I am surprised you didn't mention the added weight of the M10. Before writing this, I double checked the weight of the various cameras from M9 on, and see that the M10 is 20 grams lighter than the 240. Coming from an M9, and considering that the M10 is in a slimmer package, it felt like a bit of a brick in my hand. There happened to be a couple of guys at the store who were also M9 shooters and they felt similarly about the weight. Looks to be a nice camera though.
David
 
Just thinking about this a bit - a slightly less 'pure' M-D with live view via the EVF, but without an LCD on the camera, would be interesting. I would consider it.

Doubt it will happen.

I was thinking the same thing.

But then you have to have options to control the display, and you have to generate JPEG files which means more options to control that, etc etc. And you probably need to do live view histogram, advanced metering modes, level and grid, review, ... more etc.

I don't think it's feasible to offer the LV display and nothing else. Nothing .. the M-D .. or everything .. the M10. There's not much in between that works.
 
Thanks for your observations, but you're not helping. Luckily (or unluckily) I don't have the money burning a hole in my pocket.

I look forward to an M-D version though. More than any other new camera for a long time.

Regarding the ISO dial, on the M-D it took up the electronic space let by the screen. It's current placement would allow a future M10-D to be very slim...

Slimness isn't everything, and it wouldn't buy much.

The M-D ISO dial is very thin, barely 1.5 to 2 mm thick, and stands about .5 to 1 mm above the smooth, continuous body covering only where it pokes through. It has a strong click stop so it doesn't need a lock, and your thumbs reach it quite naturally to adjust the setting when desired. Because it has a limited range from 200 to 6400, you can set it by feel easily, in total darkness: just rotate it to the limit and count 1/3 EV clicks to reach your desired ISO setting.

The M10 ISO knob locks in the up or down position, and is a light touch to turn. It turns continuously with no physical end-stop from Auto through ISO 100 to ISO 6400 (I think) and back; higher speeds need to be set in the ISO menu. Normally I'd want it locked so as not to push it off the mark accidentally, but I could not unlock it without tilting the camera and getting two fingers on it.

The result, as I said, would take some getting used to working it where the M-D style ISO setting is absolutely instant to learn and use. If they just added the Auto setting on it, and extended the scale to cover the whole range, that would be all that was needed.

G
 
Godfrey,
After looking at one of these myself, last week, I am surprised you didn't mention the added weight of the M10. Before writing this, I double checked the weight of the various cameras from M9 on, and see that the M10 is 20 grams lighter than the 240. Coming from an M9, and considering that the M10 is in a slimmer package, it felt like a bit of a brick in my hand. There happened to be a couple of guys at the store who were also M9 shooters and they felt similarly about the weight. Looks to be a nice camera though.

You piqued my curiosity, David. While I know from reading the specs that the M/M-P 240 is supposed to be about 50-90g heavier than the M9 (different by the weight of the battery mostly), I never felt it as any different at all. And I know that the M typ 262 has the aluminum top casting which is lighter than the brass one on the M typ 240s. But the M-D typ 262 has a brass top casting, not aluminum.

So I took the lens off my M-P body and off my M-D body and weighed them on an accurate gram balance scale. Body-only with hot shoe cover, battery, and the same Street Strap fitted for both cameras (I didn't feel like taking them off, too much work) they showed 735g for the M-D and 736g for the M-P. 1g different ... 3.5 hundredths of an ounce. I think we can assume that they are identical weight for all intents and purposes.

The Street Strap (yes, I have another identical one not currently fitted to a camera here...) weighs 41g.

According to the factory M10 specs, the body with battery weighs 660g. And according to the factory M9 specs, the body with battery weighs 585g. Add the weight of a Street Strap to either and you get 701g and 626g respectively.

So ... the M10 is 35g lighter than the M typ 240/M-D typ 262 and 74g heavier than the M9. For those Americans reading, this means that it is 1.2 ounces lighter than the M typ 240/M-D typ 262 and 2.6 ounces heavier than the M9.

My car key weighs 46g (1.6 oz).
My teensy little Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2 (1972 edition) lens weighs 205g (7.25 oz).

So if you're telling me that you find the M10 weighs "like a bit of a brick in my hand" compared to the M9 with the same lens on it, well, you're talking about a brick that differs in weight by about as much as two car keys. Perhaps it feels heavier because, being a bit thinner than the M9 and a little heavier, it is denser..?

Personally, I didn't notice any difference in weight at all—not between my M-D and the M10 with the same lens on it. I didn't pick up an M9 at the store to see how different its weight was, but as I say I never noticed a difference between the M9 and the M-P when I got the M-P ... In fact I remember saying how much nicer the M-P felt in my hand because it seemed to balance better and the smaller protruding bits on the back didn't get in the way as much.

Maybe I just have strong hands... :angel:

Picking the two cameras up (M-D and M10), one after another, side by side with the same lens on them, you notice first that the ends and top of the M10 body are noticeably slimmer (about 2mm), but the LCD protrudes about 3.5mm beyond the top cover, there's a step from the body covering to the button surround on both sides, and another step to the LCD ... and that sense of slimness is lost. The M-D back is smooth and simply feels thinner to my hands because it doesn't have steps and bumps in it, it's all smooth, grippable surface with a nice body covering for my fingers to rest on.

These tiny nuances of difference disappear completely when you stick an assortment of different lenses on the cameras. That is: Fit a Noctilux and those small differences in the body weight are completely unnoticeable, the big heavy lens dominates the feel completely. As would a Summilux 24 or 28, a Summicron 75, and so forth.

G
 
Thank you for your efforts on my weighing in as it were :) Godfrey.

I am sure it is a combination of things and mostly coming back to a slim Leica -I really had a time adjusting to the larger digital bodies. We all have our personal preferences as far as what feels right. For a time, I'd sold an M9 and had smaller cameras I was using. I picked up an M9 and thought, I will never go back....hah! So I don't rail against or rule out the M10 but it truly surprised me to pick it up- brick is a strong sounding term but it is so compact feeling. And when I handed it off, the others there as I said agreed it felt substantial.

I am curious about the M-D and have no doubt that would be a camera I could enjoy for a while, but right now I have more than enough to keep me clicking! We are very fortunate people to have these choices available to us.
 
That's why for those who don't mind what color the camera shows when worn, a Typ 262 variant of the M10 with magnesium alloy body would be so tempting! With that 80 gram-ish weight shed it'll be perfect.

There will be a 2-3 years wait though, if there ever will be such a thing.
 
Yes, I too am thinking that an M10-D will be the camera that will replace my M8. If it doesn't come, no loss, as the M8 is still working.

I haven't had the chance to actually use the M10 yet, but really, it sounds like it's well done. I am quite positive about it.
 
I did the same as Godfrey, playing with the M10 a few-weeks-ago and comparing it to my M-D 262.

I really liked the new viewfinder, but I'm not having trouble with the old one and neither shoot a 28mm nor wear glasses (I use a screw-in diopter). As it, the M-D is just fine with my 35/1.4 FLE and 50/0.95 Nocti for focus, though of course the Nocti is more challenging and slower.

I would like an M-10-D, or even the regular one just for the better high-ISO and the usable EVF (for Macro). The M240's EVF wasn't good enough for me to bother. We shall see, I'll probably get an M10 when they are more readily available and when my wallet has recovered from the Noctilux.
 
The M240's EVF wasn't good enough for me to bother.

It's definitely lacking but it still is a much more accurate way to focus than the RF. And the fact that you can get a used one (the Olympus version) for $100 makes it a no brainer especially since you can use it to replace all your optical VFs for your wide (or tele) lenses. Not only does one VF2 replace them but it also shows a 100% accurate image, while the add on optical finders are an approximation.
For 99% of the time the rangefinder is much quicker to use, and much quicker to focus than any EVF, but when you either need exact framing or pinpoint focus it is worth it.

It is a shame though that Leica could not have used current tech to make it, and the same goes for the 'new' clip on EVF for the M10. It's massive and still behind the times compared to others.
 
It's definitely lacking but it still is a much more accurate way to focus than the RF.

I made extensive tests with Rangefinder vs. EFV focussing. Used the Summarit 75 at 2.5 at close focus and medium distance. Same object was photographed several times with Rangefinder and then with EVF. Later I compared the photos at 100% view in Capture One.
In 90% of the photos I nailed the focus more precisely with the Rangefinder, so my experience is different. The EVF is still usefull for use with wideangle or with my adapted tele lens.
 
I was in Leica Store - San Francisco yesterday to see the M10 in person (the real M10... not the M typ 240 :cool:). I had my M-D typ 262 with me to compare key differences.

The M10 is impressively slimmer in feel than the M-P but not so much slimmer in the hand compared to the M-D. A little bit, yes. The protrusion of the control bits and the LCD on the M10 is a little less intrusive than on the M-P but at least to my hands it has nowhere near the handling comfort of the M-D. Such is the price of having the display and buttons, I guess. It's not without merit but I still like the feel of the M-D more.

The viewfinder on the M10, however, is a revelation. Finally an M viewfinder that I can see all the frame lines from 28mm to 135 easily and comfortably, with my glasses on! The focusing patch is nicely a bit larger due to the magnification, making it easier to focus, and I can for the very first time see something outside of the 28mm frames. Frankly, when Leica introduces an "M-D10" model, it will be very difficult to resist it for this viewfinder alone.

I didn't spend too much time looking at the M10 ... the viewfinder difference was my biggest interest ... but the new, simpler menu structure and buttons are nice, the simplified on/off switch is much more to my liking than the off/single/continuous/self switch on the older models, and the M10's ISO dial is welcome but would take a little getting used to. I prefer the M-D's rear-mounted thumb dial for ISO setting, it works more ergonomically for my fingers, but of course is impossible with a big LCD on the back of the camera. I didn't make any exposures with the camera (no card in it...) but fired the shutter a few times: sounds almost identical to the M-D to my ears.

That's about it ... I liked the M10 very much, but will wait for Leica to produce an M-D version of it. I want that version of the optical viewfinder, but won't give up the handling feel and utter simplicity of the M-D for it.

G

Three months in with the M-D and it remains my absolute favorite camera.
 
I was up to purchase my first digital leica till this past Sun that I finally purchased a used M262. Waiting for the package right now.
Anyway, during this process of deciding what camera (it started before the M10 was announced), I've visited the Leica Store here in San Francisco quite a few times. First I was in between the M262 and the M-D. The M-D without screen felt soooooooooo right in the hand. Then there comes the M10 ... There we go again! So finally narrow it down to M262 and M10. Substantial different in price but I've been lusting for a digital leica for so long.
So I went one more time to the store to check the brand spanking new M10. I had my M4-2 with me as usual. So they let me take a good look at the M10 and I keep going back and forward in between the M10 and the M4-2. Pretty much same body feeling, nice.
Then I thought (bad habit), the M10 seems like a very irresponsible purchase. Is way too much money for me and i could buy the M262 used for a lot less!
Ok, let me see the M262 again please. So there I am with the M10, the m262, and my M4-2 in front of me. What a display. I was thinking that there was no way after holding the M10 and feeling so similar to my M4-2 I was going to like the feeling of the M262. My surprise was big! The M262 was feeling better in my hand than the other two :eek: I guess the thickness just makes for a better grip in my hands (average size hands). Go figure.

In my case the viewfinder of the M10 didn't impressed me at all to be honest, maybe because all my reference for comparison was the M4-2 which has a 0.72 so I noticed it was a bit wider but not specially impressed with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom