M10 images leak

[tightsqueez]

The issue with a touchscreen is that you have to take the camera away from your eye and look at the screen to see what button you are pressing. With real haptic buttons you get something where you can change settings without having to take the camera away from your eye, or without having a beaming screen glowing in your face, or without having to look at the screen.

Honestly I love the screen on my microsoft surface pro tablet and the touch interface is amazing for editing and general computing, but on a camera where I hate looking at the screen on the back, I can't think of anything worse than not having controls and just a screen. In fact the leica M is the camera that least needs a touchscreen out of literally every single camera available - the entire concept of the M line is that it's a manual experience with direct controls.

100% agree with this statement. Give the touch screen generation their crack... fine. But keep the essential where I could drive the thing with my eyes closed.

Having a touch screen camera is like driving and texting. You are safer with people drinking and driving. At least they are somewhat present.

 

[mdwsta4]

That ISO dial would most definitely get bumped with a strap. Hopefully it locks somehow. Maybe you have to pull it up to turn it similar to the old rewind knobs? Interesting that the shutter button no longer has any markings. Wonder if they finally made it a simple on/off and got rid of the other modes? All this talk about Fuji, they finally got their button layout right with everything on one side. This photo of the M10 is a step backward in this regard keeping buttons on both sides of the screen requiring two hands to operate.

The X-Pro 1 (and 2) are direct copies of the X-Pan/TX-1 panoramic film camera.

I've owned both an M and a Fuji for over 5 years since they launched. My initial pair was an x100 for 35mm and M2 for 50mm. A number of people have both brands. I can manual focus Leica lenses on the X-Pro 2 just fine, but I like an M for an M. It's a different experience. Not better, just different. At the end of the day, both cameras capture images. At that point it's about the person behind the camera, not the camera itself.

The 'copy' tag IMO only persists because Fuji resurrected design and features once found on many cameras, but ones which were largely obsolete except on the Leica.

I get the sense that a few people own both a X-Pro and a M. That (IMO) demonstrates the differences and viability in each product.

 

[fenixv8]

If you look closely you can see the EVF port. The hot shoe is the same is the TL and its supposed to use the TL visio flex type 020 external evf. The newer evf with 3.6 mil dots vs 1.6 (not sure if numbers exact) doesnt have that port on the back of the camera.

 

[pechelman]

OH!
very cool and good eye fenix

 

[Chubberino]

I get the sense that a few people own both a X-Pro and a M. That (IMO) demonstrates the differences and viability in each product.

guilty as charged, lol

 

[fenixv8]

Same ^ I own 2 digital cameras; M240 and X pro 2

leica M3 for film

 

[adamjbonn]

The X-Pro 1 (and 2) are direct copies of the X-Pan/TX-1 panoramic film camera.

I've owned both an M and a Fuji for over 5 years since they launched. My initial pair was an x100 for 35mm and M2 for 50mm. A number of people have both brands. I can manual focus Leica lenses on the X-Pro 2 just fine, but I like an M for an M. It's a different experience. Not better, just different. At the end of the day, both cameras capture images. At that point it's about the person behind the camera, not the camera itself.

Yes, I've never really understood some of the accusations of plagiarism against Fuji from a small percentage of Leica folk (I'm speaking fairly generically, I'm not referencing any specific individual on RFF)

(Quite possibly a seed sown by the press)

As you say, Fuji have their own historical camera designs and also a history of film.

Like I wrote in my post, buy a X-Pro to scratch a Leica M itch and you'll stay itchy.. it's a different animal

 

[Highway 61]

I wish they found a way to put exposure compensation dial somehow though.

If you shoot RAW, which must be done in any case with any good digital camera, you just don't have to go through any exposure compensation. Just meter on the bright lights not to get bright lights clipping and carefully post-process each file at once. Underexpose if you don't want to suffer from camera shake. This is the exact same as turning the ISO dial. As a matter of security for not getting bright lights clipping you can have a negative exposure compensation setting (-1/3 or even -2/3) permanently locked in the matching menu. This is enough. You don't need any exposure compensation dial on a digital camera.

Remember, there is only one exposure sensitivity in your digital camera : the native sensitivity of your sensor. Everything else belongs to the electronic signal processing domain. Digital photography is about getting a rich and not clipped clean file captured by the camera sensor, then creating the definite picture in front of a pro-rate calibrated computer screen. Looks like this is something a bit forgotten these days.

So, the more simple the camera, the better. Actually a digital camera with no ISO dial would just work fine if always used in M mode to shoot RAW as far as the photographer would never overexpose (clipped bright lights are the only thing you can't deal with properly). Everything would be fine while post-processing. Pulling an underexposed file while post-processing with a computer and a capable software is the exact same as turning the ISO dial upwards on the camera. Depending on the quality of the processing engine embedded in the camera, it even provides cleaner files sometimes.

Leica is on the good tracks of simplicity and efficiency and Nikon, with their totally goofed Df covered with useless buttons and dials like someone having got chickenpox, should learn the lesson. Yet, the M10 could have just been a thinner M-D with some optical refinements in the viewfinder (larger magnification) and a better sensor. The rest is literature.

 

[user237428934]

Just meter on the bright lights not to get bright lights clipping and carefully post-process each file at once.

Sorry, to me that's not a smart advice as a general rule for every photo. If you expose for the bright lights you force everything into the shadows and give away latitude on the highlights. As a side effect you don't see anything useful on the screen in playback.

In postprocessing you also have the slider "rescue highlights" that is as useful as the "rescue shadows" slider.

A sensor with a really good dynamic range gives me the option to expose normally for midtones that gives me a perfect playback image and in post processing I can bring back highlights and shadows with the appropriate sliders.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

Digital sensors retain shadow information much better than it retains highlight information is what Highway 61 was getting at. If you underexpose a bit you can use the shadow recovery in your RAW processor of choice and bring back that information better than if you blew the highlights and tried to use the highlight recovery tool.

 

[SaveKodak]

Sorry, to me that's not a smart advice as a general rule for every photo. If you expose for the bright lights you force everything into the shadows and give away latitude on the highlights. As a side effect you don't see anything useful on the screen in playback.

In postprocessing you also have the slider "rescue highlights" that is as useful as the "rescue shadows" slider.

A sensor with a really good dynamic range gives me the option to expose normally for midtones that gives me a perfect playback image and in post processing I can bring back highlights and shadows with the appropriate sliders.

Leica sensors make it harder to 'expose to the right', but this is actually a common and smart practice, especially when you're shooting fast. Nikon cameras have a degree of ISO invariance, so I frequently shoot 1/3rd to 1 stop down. It's not all that difference of exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights on film, just the opposite since we're dealing with positives. Leica and Canon sensors are noisier or have been recently, making this practice difficult. But, when you can do it, it's useful and ensures a flexible file to work on in post.

 

[willie_901]

If you shoot RAW, which must be done in any case with any good digital camera, you just don't have to go through any exposure compensation. Just meter on the bright lights not to get bright lights clipping and carefully post-process each file at once. Underexpose if you don't want to suffer from camera shake. This is the exact same as turning the ISO dial. As a matter of security for not getting bright lights clipping you can have a negative exposure compensation setting (-1/3 or even -2/3) permanently locked in the matching menu. This is enough. You don't need any exposure compensation dial on a digital camera.

Remember, there is only one exposure sensitivity in your digital camera : the native sensitivity of your sensor. Everything else belongs to the electronic signal processing domain. Digital photography is about getting a rich and not clipped clean file captured by the camera sensor, then creating the definite picture in front of a pro-rate calibrated computer screen. Looks like this is something a bit forgotten these days.

So, the more simple the camera, the better. Actually a digital camera with no ISO dial would just work fine if always used in M mode to shoot RAW as far as the photographer would never overexpose (clipped bright lights are the only thing you can't deal with properly). Everything would be fine while post-processing. Pulling an underexposed file while post-processing with a computer and a capable software is the exact same as turning the ISO dial upwards on the camera. Depending on the quality of the processing engine embedded in the camera, it even provides cleaner files sometimes.
...

This is certainly true when a camera's read noise level is not a function of ISO. Even the M9 has a low read noise ISO dependence up to ISO 640.

Since Fujifilm's name has popped up in several posts in this thread I will report I use my X100T and X-T1 as Highway 61 describes. Often I auto-bracket three exposures in -1/3, 0, +1/3 aperture stops and pick the raw file with the most appropriate highlight retention. Honestly, I can't remember the last time I touched an EV compensation dial. With an OVF finder brightness is not an issue. With an EVF Fujifilm (and others do doubt) support a finder view mode that automatically boosts 'live-view' brightness. Simplicity is further increased in low light as in-camera JPEG review is not practical.

I find a 3 EV, post-processing global EV push has no IQ disadvantages and a 4 EV push is satisfactory. Up to ISO 1600, the M240/260 and Fujifilm X-Trans II data streams' ISO invariances are very similar (link). The M10's data stream read noise characteristics will almost certainly be at least this good or (probably) better.

 

[willie_901]

...
A sensor with a really good dynamic range gives me the option to expose normally for midtones that gives me a perfect playback image and in post processing I can bring back highlights and shadows with the appropriate sliders.

I am unaware of any digital camera with an analog dynamic range capable of supporting exposing for mid-tones as a simple, universal solution. This doesn't mean exposing for mid-tones is deficient for scenes where the all the light levels in the frame fall within a camera's analog dynamic range capabilities.

What Highway 61 described always maximizes the signal-to-noise ratio for the regions that will benefit the most – the regions in the frame with lower light levels than the very brightest regions'.

When 100% of the frame's brightest regions (no matter how small or insignificant) must be properly exposed, the lower light regions' IQ will decrease because their signal-to-noise ratio will be lower compared to shutter times and, or apertures where unimportant highlights are intentionally overexposed.

 

[jsrockit]

Sorry, to me that's not a smart advice as a general rule for every photo. If you expose for the bright lights you force everything into the shadows and give away latitude on the highlights. As a side effect you don't see anything useful on the screen in playback.

In postprocessing you also have the slider "rescue highlights" that is as useful as the "rescue shadows" slider.

A sensor with a really good dynamic range gives me the option to expose normally for midtones that gives me a perfect playback image and in post processing I can bring back highlights and shadows with the appropriate sliders.

I think exposing for highlights was more important years ago when sensors would blow highlights easier and leave no information to recover. Now I find modern sensors are great at recovering highlights AND shadows. I still lean more towards exposing for highlights though these days.

 

[user237428934]

Leica sensors make it harder to 'expose to the right', but this is actually a common and smart practice, especially when you're shooting fast. Nikon cameras have a degree of ISO invariance, so I frequently shoot 1/3rd to 1 stop down. It's not all that difference of exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights on film, just the opposite since we're dealing with positives. Leica and Canon sensors are noisier or have been recently, making this practice difficult. But, when you can do it, it's useful and ensures a flexible file to work on in post.

I have no proof but I think that parts of the bad reputation of the Canon sensors for handling shadows comes from a massive use of ETTR. Problem is, that the camera has a jpg histogram. I tested it extensively with the 6D I had. I wanted to know how much light I can add when the histogram just started to clip and still rescue all the highlights in postprocessing. For the 6D I was able to add 1EV of light after the histogram clipped and I still had all the data in skys and clouds. When I added more light, the raw converter tried to rescue something but it didn't look good anymore.
If now people use ETTR according to the histogram they don't use a reserve on the right side and cause 1EV of problems on the left side.

With the M240 sensor you are still somewhat limited in getting lot's of EV out of the shadows. More important for me is, that I can expose normally without caring too much about blown highlights.

I personally don't understand it, why lot's of people ONLY see the shadow recovery capability when they talk about dynamic range.

 

[adamjbonn]

I have no proof but I think that parts of the bad reputation of the Canon sensors for handling shadows comes from a massive use of ETTR. Problem is, that the camera has a jpg histogram. I tested it extensively with the 6D I had. I wanted to know how much light I can add when the histogram just started to clip and still rescue all the highlights in postprocessing. For the 6D I was able to add 1EV of light after the histogram clipped and I still had all the data in skys and clouds. When I added more light, the raw converter tried to rescue something but it didn't look good anymore.
If now people use ETTR according to the histogram they don't use a reserve on the right side and cause 1EV of problems on the left side.

With the M240 sensor you are still somewhat limited in getting lot's of EV out of the shadows. More important for me is, that I can expose normally without caring too much about blown highlights.

I personally don't understand it, why lot's of people ONLY see the shadow recovery capability when they talk about dynamic range.

FWIW, and I probably shouldn't be quoting as what I have to say has nothing to do with Canon or Leica..

But the Fuji X range histograms are jpeg luminance based too

I wonder how many cameras are?

 

[coelacanth]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BPIdD2ajOu0/?taken-by=chi_rol_leica

 

[adamjbonn]

Looks like the drive mode got moved to the menu...

https://instagram.com/p/BPIYRcnjnB3/

That'll annoy some 😉

 

[user237428934]

Looks like the drive mode got moved to the menu...

https://instagram.com/p/BPIYRcnjnB3/

That'll annoy some 😉

I use the self timer quite often from the tripod. Switching to self timer was very easy with the digital Leicas. If they put this in the menu only, then it's ok, as long as they don't copy the stupid Fuji implementation where the self timer is reset to no-self timer whenever the camera switches to standby.

 

[fenixv8]