Leica M10-R Buying Poll July 2020

Leica M10-R Buying Poll July 2020

  • I have ordered my M10-R

    Votes: 7 3.4%

  • I plan to order my M10-R within 6 months

    Votes: 8 3.9%

  • I am on the fence about the M10-R

    Votes: 13 6.4%

  • I have no plans to buy it in the next 6 months

    Votes: 54 26.5%

  • The M10-R is too expensive for my purposes

    Votes: 71 34.8%

  • I have no need to upgrade from my present Leica

    Votes: 84 41.2%

  • I need the M10-R's higher resolution

    Votes: 4 2.0%
  • Total voters
    204
  • Poll closed .
Larry Cloetta said:
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2020/20200717_1448-OWC-LeicaM10r-LeicaM10m.html

There is an interesting entry over at Lloyd Chambers site on the camera. Am tempted to cut and paste the entire thing, because it raises several valid points that have not even been mentioned yet in 3 pages here. The most interesting section isn’t even Chambers’ initial assessment, it’s a thought provoking addendum by a confirmed Leica owner named Roy P.
The gist is that 40MP in a Leica SL, or Q series makes some sense, but it makes little to no sense in an M body that uses rangefinder focusing. Ditto the use of some of the newer M lenses with world class MTF charts. The M is simply a camera that is unable to be reliably focused well enough, consistently enough to take advantage of either 40 MP or the 75 Noctilux.
The 40 MP “benefit” of being able to do greater enlargements, or to do extensive cropping, isn’t reliably there with this camera simply because of the inherent problems with rf focusing. You are not going to get any benefits from “more resolution” if you cannot focus at the accuracy that 40 MP requires. And with an M, you can’t. If someone wants that capability, they are better off using a camera that actually allows that, like the SL. 24 MP is likely the sweet spot for an M body, as rangefinder focusing is adequate for that. On top of that, fatter pixels are better than smaller pixels all other things being equal. There’s no such thing as a free lunch when moving to high MP bodies.

There is more over there, and explained better than I have alluded to here. There is no bashing going on, but some thoughtful observations are raised, things I have mot seen considered here, which is the only reason I bring it up.
Click to expand...

I believe they're correct. Oddly enough, I came to the same conclusion and bought a Q2 and an SL2, when they came out. I've sold my digital M's and use my M2/3 for B&W.
 
I do think the article and responses on Lloyd Chambers miss what the M series is now- it's a nostalgic luxury item for collectors. The main camera line for Leica is the SL and Q series.
 
jsrockit said:
Does the SL outsell the M? I’d be very surprised if it did... the M is special. The SL is just another huge dslr shaped mirrorless.
Click to expand...

It is but it allows Leica to develop a line of superlative lenses which they couldn`t with the M body because (as I understand it) of technical and physical constraints .
 
The SL is just another huge dslr shaped mirrorless.
Click to expand...
And the SL has a lot more competition in that segment than the M has -which is easy, since the M has none.

On a beside, after looking at a number of reviews online, I believe that 40Mp combined with manual rangefinder focusing may not be a great idea. You'd need, at least Liveview and the Visoflex 2, which Leica chose not to upgrade + top quality glass to achieve decent results. IBIS would have helped too, but it's not for the purists. Cheers, OtL
 
I get that Michael. I know my friend Cal (Calzone here) loves his SL and SL2. For me, it is a nightmare! ;) A huge body and huge lenses, but still 35mm. Sadly, the M isn’t for me either anymore. If I was to buy another Leica, I’d be in the CL or Q camp.
 
jsrockit said:
I get that Michael. I know my friend Cal (Calzone here) loves his SL and SL2. For me, it is a nightmare! ;) A huge body and huge lenses, but still 35mm. Sadly, the M isn’t for me either anymore. If I was to buy another Leica, I’d be in the CL or Q camp.
Click to expand...

Same with me John .
I`ve always liked a more compact camera .
I went for the CL and couldn`t be more pleased .
The 55-135 is on par with my Canon 70-200 and the focus system is more than adequate for the horse stuff I`m occasionally asked to do .
I would be interested in an SL but for my M lenses simply because I prefer an EVF and peak focussing with the added bonus that I could use my CL lenses on it.
But happy with what I have at the moment .
 
Right now, an A7rii is a much better way to get 40mp, no AA filter, and correct focus. That's a little over a grand.

Right now, I have serious repair fatigue and am starting to doubt whether I am ever going to buy another rangefinder. Leica has a factory operation that seems to want to reset your RF in a way that makes previously functional Leica lenses into back-focusing messes, and independent repair situation leaves a lot to be desired.

Dante
 
Dante_Stella said:
Right now, an A7rii is a much better way to get 40mp....

Right now, I have serious repair fatigue and am starting to doubt whether I am ever going to buy another rangefinder....... independent repair situation leaves a lot to be desired....Dante
Click to expand...

Dante – Your voice would be missed if your 'fatigue' led you as intimated. I too am frustrated by the mythologising of Leica; wide-open performance, bokeh fetish, poor resurrected lenses marketed as 'characterful', and the expense of high Leica taxes when you use the M platform.

I agonised about buying my M10 [soon to be my former M10], I went around in circles about value for money and file quality etc., and wanted to like what Sony was doing; but couldn't!

My Leica reality is a camera I use in all-manual fashion; I set aperture, focus at that aperture, adjust exposure, make my work. Any camera requiring me to focus at an aperture other than the one I set for the exposure is useless for my working method. Unless I've missed something; Leica M is the only platform which allows manual focus at a stopped down aperture [doubters – try focusing a 28mm lens at f8-f11 using blinkies when working seriously]. I also use the EVF a lot, but an eye level live-view viewfinder is useless for me; I require a swivelling viewfinder to enable me to use my camera at the height the picture dictates and the Leica 020 viewfinder gives that workable solution. Regardless of charms, value, technical output etc. etc., the Sony and other competitors, don't pass my manual-focus-at-stopped-down-aperture requirement. I was obliged to stay with Leica M.

Yes; Leica's understanding of the strengths of the M platform often seems woeful, and there is much to find irritating. I continue to use Leica-M despite that, and I wonder if you will too.

............ Chris
 
I don't see using Leica M cameras as a problem of any sort since many other systems are readily available if so desired for any reasons.
 
I love all the gross generalizations and testaments to personal preferences that surface with every introduction of a new Leica camera, regardless of how close to facts and reality they might be. LOL!

:cool:

I've got a few other things going on at present and have just the one M4-2 left in this camp. I keep it because I like it, and I like that I can fit my Instant Magny 35 to it and make instant film photographs with it too. :)

If I were to buy into a digital M once more, it would likely be the M10-M as I'm more likely to pick a niche camera than a general purpose camera at this point. For a hand-held shooter, the CL does that pretty well: along with the Light L16 and the Hasselblad 907x, I really don't need more in the digital capture domain.

The SL (and now SL2) are brilliant cameras and what I loved the most when I was taking jobs, shooting for pay. When I retired and that need was no longer on me, I preferred the M for the more limited things I liked, but the CL does what the M does a little better and is much more versatile; I also prefer TTL viewing most of the time.

But to rank cameras based on specs and such is really such a waste of time. The myths of "not being able to focus well enough" etc etc etc are another waste of time. A good camera inspires you to see more, try more, use it more ... other factors fade into insignificance unless you have specific needs that the camera must address.

G
 
By law, aren't Leica required to supply parts for a certain number of years?

Such spare parts likely don't require that much space, even for 10's of thousands of cameras - likely less than five storage units' capacity.
 
Tim Gray said:
It’s all about final print/viewing size.

I’d also point out that 40mp actually isn’t all that much more resolution than 24mp.
Click to expand...

I am sure people know this but here is a handy graphic to compare actual change in relative sizes. It's not 100% accurate but should be close enough. The logic is that the MP size is #of vertical pixels multiplied by # of horizontal pixels. Sorry if this is very common knowledge but it wasn't for me just a few months ago.


Edit: Ignore the white border. It's a hastily made drawing. If the pink (internal) rectangle is about 24mp, the burnt sienna (outer) rectangle will be about 40mp. The colors may look slightly different based on your monitor but the basic principle should stand...


4ljDMVV.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom