willie_901
Veteran
The M10's technology in term of technical image quality (i.e. signal-to-noise ratio) performs similarly other current 24 x 36mm sensor cameras. This degree of technical image quality is capable of delivering outstanding results in any circumstances one would choose to use a RF camera.
Obviously there will be incremental improvements in future products. Dual conversion-gain signal circuitry is the one possibility should Leica choose to license this patented technology as SONY, FUJIFILM, Nikon and others do. At the same time, I do not believe the M10's technical image quality is lacking in any way. I find it difficult to believe Leica lens owners will ever face technical image quality obsolescence when newer CMOS technologies appear.
My conclusion is the opposite. Anyone who enjoys using M.LTM lenses and appreciates operating a camera in the manner a Leica RF operates, would receive a great deal of value for their dollar with used M10.
Reliance on electronic circuitry instead of film is moot. This is so for all digital cameras.
traveler_101
American abroad
With all due respect, I don't agree with your equating film cameras and digital ones. I am not going to dissent too radically from your initial premise: viz that sensor technology has reached a plateau for now and the cameras therefore will not be outdated immediately, but digital photography is moving forward technically and there will always be pressure to keep up with those changes. Furthermore electronic devices are subject to breakdown whether you pay $1500 or $5000 for the camera. There are a lot of good digital cameras new for 1500.
On the other hand 5,000 or 6,000 for a film M is money I would strongly consider spending because it is a camera I would have for the rest of my life. And it can be repaired indefinitely.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have both, and I use both now; film and digital M cameras. Yesterday, while at the beach during sunset, I switched between the M9 with a Pentax 50 1.4 and a Standard Leica (EFKE 100) with a Canon ltm 19mm/3.5. Each has its own charm and usefulness. To complete the package, I also used the M3 (Fujicolr 400) and a Zeiss Hologon 16/8. Life is good. I am not complaining. The M10 seems to be an excellent digital M camera from what I can read online and from talking with some photographers with M10's. I recently asked a former Leica AG executive wheher he things that for my needs an M10 is a better choice next or an SL. He mentioned something about both, and he recommended to me "definitely" to get the M10 and not the SL fir using M lenses with such cameras.
benlees
Well-known
I never quite understand posts like this. There is no pressure to keep up with whatever the manufacturers want to sell you. You can, in fact, get yourself an electronic device that will last for years and years. Cameras, like other tools, should be used for purpose: in this case to make photos. Whatever perceived limitations that may include are just that: perceptions.
traveler_101
American abroad
"I never quite understand posts like this. There is no pressure to keep up with whatever the manufacturers want to sell you."
Sure but people live in a social milieu in which shared perception is very important. I am with you: stand out from the crowd. Relegate digital to the commonplace and make film your means of expression. Now I've had my little say . . . for whatever good it does.
Sure but people live in a social milieu in which shared perception is very important. I am with you: stand out from the crowd. Relegate digital to the commonplace and make film your means of expression. Now I've had my little say . . . for whatever good it does.