Leica M10 Monochrom 41 MP

One thing bugs me...
It seems, more expensive camera gets, less photography is seeing from it.
Plenty of exercises in exposure, testing of expensive and cheap lenses, but not so much of photography as it is present from less expensive cameras owners.

Garry Winogrand didn't even have new Leicas and used cheaper Canon lenses for many years.

But maybe it is not Leica fault. Maybe they know what they can't increase sales by making M cameras cheaper. Maybe here is only few left who are capable of using cameras without AF and AE (Leica M series AE sucks just as Leica TTL flash).
 
It was so much fun to use film camera with low ISO slide film and a spotmeter! The challenge to correctly expose the film was exciting.
 
Where are you not seeing good photos? On a gear oriented amateur photo forum? And this is somebody’s fault?
 
Rayt said:
This is the Grail when my M8.2 and M9 are scrap metal. I have been waiting for this one!
Click to expand...

I thought you just bought a Linhof Master Technika 4x5, as per the "what have you just bought" thread. That just might be better than an M10 Monochrom anyway:)
In the meantime, congrats on the Linhof, while waiting for the M10.
 
Maybe somebody needs a 41MP Leica. But The Leica M wants to be handheld. I don't think you can get the full sharpness of even a 12MP camera without a tripod, let alone 18, 24, or 41MP.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
One thing bugs me...
It seems, more expensive camera gets, less photography is seeing from it.
Plenty of exercises in exposure, testing of expensive and cheap lenses, but not so much of photography as it is present from less expensive cameras owners.
Click to expand...

The problem is that photography is expensive. I estimate that I have spent circa 3k euros on repairs, film and chemicals in the last 12 months for a single Leica camera.

If you shoot a lot of film, then a digital body could pay for itself - even before discounting time saved on scanning etc.
 
Rob-F said:
Maybe somebody needs a 41MP Leica. But The Leica M wants to be handheld. I don't think you can get the full sharpness of even a 12MP camera without a tripod, let alone 18, 24, or 41MP.
Click to expand...

By this logic Tri-X requires a tripod. I suspect past 1/250th of a second a tripod becomes irrelevant for most images one might make with an M camera.
 
There must be something wrong with me...
16mp is just fine for me ... 24 may be a luxury i might consider
Beyond that, megapixels get wasted on Me, no need , no care
 
My top two digital Leica cameras sport 12 and 16MP.
This is sufficient for my needs.
 
Not much requirement if you don`t crop.
I use a couple of high MP cams , one (A7R2 ) with in body cropping .
Useful if you need a longer reach and saves hauling along another lens ( or two ).
 
raid said:
My top two digital Leica cameras sport 12 and 16MP.
This is sufficient for my needs.
Click to expand...

Raid,

Sometimes it matters more the size of the pixel rather than how many.

I can see landscape guys who print mucho big liking the added MP.

I like the Q2 for the weatherproofing, and the SL2 for the reported IBIS. To me these are bigger deals than the pixel count.

To me the M10M would be a very useful camera for those of us that are trying to emulate medium and large format photography. Not for everyone.

Also with my SL I use the electronic shutter and at times my shutter speeds are 1/20,000 of a second. As good as a tripod IMHO.

Cal
 
sepiareverb said:
By this logic Tri-X requires a tripod. I suspect past 1/250th of a second a tripod becomes irrelevant for most images one might make with an M camera.
Click to expand...

Tri-X doesn't have nearly the resolution of 41MP; probably not even of 24MP. My point is that to get the increased resolution of a 41MP camera together with the best lenses, calls for great care and the best technique. I don't think there are very many films that can match the performance of the M10, let alone this M10 Monochrom.
 
When the original Monochrom was created, the roots were to be taken from Bresson, as a sort of tribute. I had that camera for over three years (four different copies) and it was anything but a tribute to Henri. Both the MM and M246 were flawed sensors, however I have preferred the original sensor's output. The M9/MM camera platform was and is a complete dog. And does everyone remember the promotion shots of the M246? Do you know all of the images have a dead pixel line going through all the images? I think it's funny in two ways: Leica promoting its true self and on the flip side how dead pixels won't affect a good picture or bad picture one bit.

I have high hopes for this next Monochrom but they better address making the camera a "shooter." The M10 is so slow!! Start up time is a joke, whether turning on or from sleep. And why does the exposure compensation show in the viewfinder before the actual shutter speed? The M240 was like this... so annoying! The M9/MM had a little dot in the finder to show you had some type of compensation.

41MP? Why? All the inherent flaws of using and shooting with a rangefinder will be exaggerated. The prints you could make with the original 18MP were absolutely insane. I don't think Leica has what it takes to support a 41MP camera, not at least to fit in a M sized camera. The camera needs to be quick, agile, and ready to go on a moments notice. It's not what the M10 offered. Turn on and use another camera by Nikon/Canon and it's amazing how responsive they are in comparison.

I have a feeling the direction of the monochrom, to be a tribute to photographers who actually drove their cameras to create memorable images, has shifted. Instead they are creating a camera for 99% who will actually buy it....

I've been using Leica digital cameras for 13 years, ranging from the D-Lux 3, M8, M9, MM, M240, M10 and I've had a quite the love/hate relationship. One thing I've sadly learned is how they are liabilities.

When they get it right I'll return to a digital Leica, until then I've been liberated by film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom