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 .
There doesn`t seem to be an over whelming response for the R on LUF either .
A significant number of people with the SL2 now tend to favour that body for its increased flexibility .
 
I still haven't made the switch to digital Leica so will stick w/my Leica film cameras: M6/M2/IIIf's.

Not knocking anyone who wants to purchase one though.
 
Michael Markey said:
There doesn`t seem to be an over whelming response for the R on LUF either .
A significant number of people with the SL2 now tend to favour that body for its increased flexibility .
Click to expand...

I would have considered getting an SL or SL2 if it wasn't for the fact that you need also to get new lenses for these cameras to fully exploit the capabilities. Using a M adapter with SL or SL2 seems to be a temporary fix that eventually will lead you to buy some of the expensive L lenses.
 
BillBlackwell said:
Almost a year ago I got a great deal on my green M10-P and have no plans to upgrade.

18568099-orig.jpg


Given the right price/opportunity, I'd have far more interest in the M10 Monochrom.
Click to expand...

Beautiful!
 
raid said:
I would have considered getting an SL or SL2 if it wasn't for the fact that you need also to get new lenses for these cameras to fully exploit the capabilities. Using a M adapter with SL or SL2 seems to be a temporary fix that eventually will lead you to buy some of the expensive L lenses.
Click to expand...

The view of one poster who favoured the SL was that M lenses especially 75 / 90 and 135 (and the faster glass) were easier to focus on the SL .
The other reason was versatility in that you could use native AF lenses or indeed other manufacturers lenses should you wish.


Although they won`t take E mount because of the disparity in the flange distance apparently .

The downside is its larger and heavier than an M , of course .

The M10 is the first of the digital M`s which have attracted me and if my main focal lengths weren`t 90 and longer it would be a strong contender .
 
Michael Markey said:
The view of one poster who favoured the SL was that M lenses especially 75 / 90 and 135 (and the faster glass) were easier to focus on the SL .
The other reason was versatility in that you could use native AF lenses or indeed other manufacturers lenses should you wish.


Although they won`t take E mount because of the disparity in the flange distance apparently .

The downside is its larger and heavier than an M , of course .

The M10 is the first of the digital M`s which have attracted me and if my main focal lengths weren`t 90 and longer it would be a strong contender .
Click to expand...

My eyesight is still excellent, and I use RF focusing with my 75/1.4. The size of the SL/SL2 is the main factor in addition to the cost of L lenses that seemed unsuitable and/or out of reach for me.
 
Having owned and used Leica SL and M cameras side by side extensively, to say one is "better than the other" for focusing without a lot of specific qualifications is something of an over-generalization.

The M's coupled optical rangefinder is a better focusing tool for some circumstances and focal lengths, in many shooting circumstances. The SL's high resolution EVF with focus assist magnification is a more versatile focusing tool for a wider range of focal lengths and shooting situations, and for some of them it is far superior (for example: for nearly any kind of close up work). The SL's focusing system is also much more compatible with different kinds of lenses besides its native L lens kit (it works beautifully with Leica R lenses in particular, due to their ergonomics and the presence of Leica lens profiles to assure that the lenses perform as they were originally intended). The M can be used with adapted lenses but only with more constraints due to its lower resolution EVF accessory and the poorer response time of its shutter when used in this mode.

When I had the M-P 240 only, I'd occasionally adapt my Leica R and Nikkor macro lenses and telephotos for table top and macro work, but the SL completely obviated those uses entirely: I ended up never fitting anything but a rangefinder lens to it after that. There was little point. With the SL, I had two native lenses and a bag full of R and M lenses ... I used the R lenses almost exclusively and never felt constrained from that.

But the M and its native lenses are generally speaking a more compact And lighter weight carry system. If those facets of the M are important to your uses, and the rangefinder focusing and optical tunnel viewfinder work for your focusing and framing use, then the M10-R will net the same resolution capability as the SL2 in a smaller, easier to travel with package.

All camera equipment is a compromise on one level or another. You should pick whatever equipment supports your photography in the way and to the quality level that you are satisfied with, and ignore what isn't important to your use that it might not do as well.

G
 
Thanks Godfrey - always cogent and making great sense.

I look at the SL2s as an ultimate replacement for any digital SLR I have and using R and native AF lenses

Whereas the M series digital (not sure which really) as the complement to my film rangefinders - IF they can get one to shoot B&W and colour as beautifully as film...

There are several assumptions in the above - the most obvious being the presence of the necessaries in the bank and the ability to stop spending it on other weirdnesses!
 
Godfrey said:
I see little reason to downgrade to the M10-R from my Hasselblad 907x either, but that really is beside the point. ;)

G
Click to expand...

I guess our silly little joke was that the X-Pro3 is the lesser camera in the marketplace comparatively. Your camera... well, nobody will consider that lesser. :)
 
CharlesDAMorgan said:
Thanks Godfrey - always cogent and making great sense.

I look at the SL2s as an ultimate replacement for any digital SLR I have and using R and native AF lenses

Whereas the M series digital (not sure which really) as the complement to my film rangefinders - IF they can get one to shoot B&W and colour as beautifully as film...

There are several assumptions in the above - the most obvious being the presence of the necessaries in the bank and the ability to stop spending it on other weirdnesses!
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

(Bolden) I'm reluctant to say much on this thought, other than that while I still love and shoot film, I do it mostly to celebrate the defects and inconsistencies of the medium and enjoy the chance surprises it affords rather than consider image quality as a reason for the effort it takes.

But let's not rathole into another sillly "film vs digital" conundrum. :)

G
 
jsrockit said:
I guess our silly little joke was that the X-Pro3 is the lesser camera in the marketplace comparatively. Your camera... well, nobody will consider that lesser. :)
Click to expand...

LOL! Well, for many uses, the Leica CL (never mind the M) is far superior in use compared to the Hasselblad 907x. But I ain't downgrading anyway...! :D

G
 
I indulge my wife with her sewing machine hobby but for some reason I don't do the same for my photography. I've never had a problem dropping M10-R money on a sewing machine for her so it's not as if I can't afford it. I guess it's more I feel that she is a more accomplished seamstress than I am photographer.
 
It doesn't have fake film advance lever. And this is the only upgrade feature I consider as serious Leica Camera AG achievement comparing to my M-E.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom