Bill Pierce
Well-known
It’s a rangefinder forum, and I’ve been asked, once again, what I think of digital Leica M’s, specifically the M10. For me their primary function is to provide a digital body for photographers who used the Leica film cameras, already have a collection of Leica lenses and do the type of shooting that benefits from a bright line viewfinder. Obviously, the expense of going to the store and buying new lenses and, maybe, a back up body is far beyond most folks. And that built-in bright line finder only has a range of frames from 28mm to 90mm - and the ones that are probably most usable are from 35 to 75mm.
Who are the photographers that fit into that 28/90 mold? Henri Cartier Bresson, Elliot Erwitt, Arnold Rothstein, Ralph Gibson, Will McBride, Eva Rubenstein, Robert Doisneau, Alfred Eisenstadt, Ben Shawn and Charlie Gatewood among others. Not an equipment freak among them, indeed many of them often worked with a single camera and a single “normal” lens. But they did pay a lot of attention to what was in front of the camera.
All of them used what was at the time a very small, quiet camera. But, there are smaller and totally silent cameras available today. However, only a few of them of them have a bright line viewfinder where everything, near and far, is sharp and you can see outside of the frame and be aware of alternative framings and action outside of the frame. That to me is incredibly important, more important than the picture preview provided by TTL. (And bright line finders are easier to use in very bright sunlight even if there aren’t a lot of Leica Landscapers.)
Yes, several Fuji cameras have bright line viewfinders. And, while the finders and the information they provide is different, in the long run I really don’t consider either Fuji or Leica viewfinder better than the other. Nor do I think the image quality as seen in larger prints gives one brand the lead. And both have TTL options although the Leica is limited to a Live View rear screen. It is, however, an excellent screen providing a preview of the image whose framing is considerably more accurate than the bright line finder and magnified focusing capabilities that go beyond the rangefinder.
What is the difference then? It’s simple - autofocus vs manual focus. Whether you autofocus with the half press of the shutter button or by assigning focus to another button, photographers with auto focus cameras spend a lot of time checking focus. The rangefinder manual focus shooter tend to set the focus and then deal with refocusing only when they have to. Indeed, some of the best street shooters like Gary Winogrand scale prefocus using the distance scale on the lens, not the rangefinder. They set a distance and stop down the lens to where the depth of field will cover a zone of acceptable focus for what is in front of them. When an instant comes, they shoot - no delay.
What are the other important differences between Fuji bright frames and Leicas? Even though the Fuji has a number of external mechanical controls that eliminate the need to dive into menus when you are shooting, it still offers far more menu options than the Leica and can use a greater range of lenses and does movies. One of the M10 features that is popular with the folks I know is the ability to configure an LCD menu with only 8 items - and most of the folks I know only configure 3 or 4 items. In other words, the Fuji is versatile and can do a great many things. The M10 is simple and limited, but that simplicity and limitations don’t stand in the way of many pictures and can encourage you to spend more time watching your subject and less time playing with your camera.
For me, it’s a good single camera for personal work, not professional. It spends a lot of time with me, recording those things I find interesting or important. I think it is an extremely good camera for that, but, if I did not already have a number of lenses and a zillion years of experience with Leicas, I would probably not buy it even though today’s price at Walmart (only 6 left) is a scant $6,700.39 (or about the price of 4 Fuji X Pro2’s).
While a Nikon D5 or Canon EPS-1D X Mark II are close to that price, a number of RF Forum threads have marked the M10 as overpriced. Still, I don’t believe that’s what I was being asked about. My answer to “what I think about M10’s” would be that as most digital cameras get more complicated, the M10 gets simpler. And for some photography and photographers that can be a real advantage.
As always, your thoughts?
Who are the photographers that fit into that 28/90 mold? Henri Cartier Bresson, Elliot Erwitt, Arnold Rothstein, Ralph Gibson, Will McBride, Eva Rubenstein, Robert Doisneau, Alfred Eisenstadt, Ben Shawn and Charlie Gatewood among others. Not an equipment freak among them, indeed many of them often worked with a single camera and a single “normal” lens. But they did pay a lot of attention to what was in front of the camera.
All of them used what was at the time a very small, quiet camera. But, there are smaller and totally silent cameras available today. However, only a few of them of them have a bright line viewfinder where everything, near and far, is sharp and you can see outside of the frame and be aware of alternative framings and action outside of the frame. That to me is incredibly important, more important than the picture preview provided by TTL. (And bright line finders are easier to use in very bright sunlight even if there aren’t a lot of Leica Landscapers.)
Yes, several Fuji cameras have bright line viewfinders. And, while the finders and the information they provide is different, in the long run I really don’t consider either Fuji or Leica viewfinder better than the other. Nor do I think the image quality as seen in larger prints gives one brand the lead. And both have TTL options although the Leica is limited to a Live View rear screen. It is, however, an excellent screen providing a preview of the image whose framing is considerably more accurate than the bright line finder and magnified focusing capabilities that go beyond the rangefinder.
What is the difference then? It’s simple - autofocus vs manual focus. Whether you autofocus with the half press of the shutter button or by assigning focus to another button, photographers with auto focus cameras spend a lot of time checking focus. The rangefinder manual focus shooter tend to set the focus and then deal with refocusing only when they have to. Indeed, some of the best street shooters like Gary Winogrand scale prefocus using the distance scale on the lens, not the rangefinder. They set a distance and stop down the lens to where the depth of field will cover a zone of acceptable focus for what is in front of them. When an instant comes, they shoot - no delay.
What are the other important differences between Fuji bright frames and Leicas? Even though the Fuji has a number of external mechanical controls that eliminate the need to dive into menus when you are shooting, it still offers far more menu options than the Leica and can use a greater range of lenses and does movies. One of the M10 features that is popular with the folks I know is the ability to configure an LCD menu with only 8 items - and most of the folks I know only configure 3 or 4 items. In other words, the Fuji is versatile and can do a great many things. The M10 is simple and limited, but that simplicity and limitations don’t stand in the way of many pictures and can encourage you to spend more time watching your subject and less time playing with your camera.
For me, it’s a good single camera for personal work, not professional. It spends a lot of time with me, recording those things I find interesting or important. I think it is an extremely good camera for that, but, if I did not already have a number of lenses and a zillion years of experience with Leicas, I would probably not buy it even though today’s price at Walmart (only 6 left) is a scant $6,700.39 (or about the price of 4 Fuji X Pro2’s).
While a Nikon D5 or Canon EPS-1D X Mark II are close to that price, a number of RF Forum threads have marked the M10 as overpriced. Still, I don’t believe that’s what I was being asked about. My answer to “what I think about M10’s” would be that as most digital cameras get more complicated, the M10 gets simpler. And for some photography and photographers that can be a real advantage.
As always, your thoughts?
Bob Baron
Member
>>as most digital cameras get more complicated, the M10 gets simpler. And for some photography and photographers that can be a real advantage.<<
You, sir, are correct!
--Carnack (I mean Bob)
You, sir, are correct!
--Carnack (I mean Bob)
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
My most considered decision involving Leica occurred last year—purchasing the even simpler M-D 262. It fits seamlessly with my other rangefinders (M4/7, Hexar, GF670, RF645) and does *not* let me get bound up in back-screen editorial fussiness like every other digital camera I’ve used.
(Which is not to blame my digital tools; I’m the operator prone to distraction and self-disruption. If it’s not the urge to check a flashing histogram, it’s treating the EVF like an optometrist device, looking for a confirmation beam or focus shimmer. And then there are the subtler cognitive dissonances of manual-reading, menu-diving, the superficial and silly pride in mastering a bunch of buttons and layouts proprietary to this or that manufacturer....)
It is not as though I made a decision to simplify my practice because I experienced a digital neurosis or breakdown. I value and use an RX1, a Kolarified A7, Sigma Merrills, a Ricoh GR. But I notice a friendly inclination—friendly to myself, to Robert, now retired with nothing more to prove, that is—to simplify the instruments and mechanics of art, to choose certain technical limitations for the sake of durable pleasures, the greatest of which is seeing the world each day as though for the first time, and for the last time. If I can simplify the way I practice that with a camera, then gear gets out of the way of vision and clarity. This feels not only serene but wise.
I appreciate the scrupulous comparison/contrast you did above with Leica/Fuji examples, but the passage that means the most to me is the litany of good and great photographers, “not an equipment freak among them,” tending toward the one camera and the one lens. That is a thought to keep in front of me.
(Which is not to blame my digital tools; I’m the operator prone to distraction and self-disruption. If it’s not the urge to check a flashing histogram, it’s treating the EVF like an optometrist device, looking for a confirmation beam or focus shimmer. And then there are the subtler cognitive dissonances of manual-reading, menu-diving, the superficial and silly pride in mastering a bunch of buttons and layouts proprietary to this or that manufacturer....)
It is not as though I made a decision to simplify my practice because I experienced a digital neurosis or breakdown. I value and use an RX1, a Kolarified A7, Sigma Merrills, a Ricoh GR. But I notice a friendly inclination—friendly to myself, to Robert, now retired with nothing more to prove, that is—to simplify the instruments and mechanics of art, to choose certain technical limitations for the sake of durable pleasures, the greatest of which is seeing the world each day as though for the first time, and for the last time. If I can simplify the way I practice that with a camera, then gear gets out of the way of vision and clarity. This feels not only serene but wise.
I appreciate the scrupulous comparison/contrast you did above with Leica/Fuji examples, but the passage that means the most to me is the litany of good and great photographers, “not an equipment freak among them,” tending toward the one camera and the one lens. That is a thought to keep in front of me.
farlymac
PF McFarland
I'm liking simple more and more lately. As for being over priced? The M10 is no consumer model, though it's not a strictly pro model either. I consider it a serious camera, one that doesn't get in the way of what you are trying to capture. But Leitz isn't going to sell enough of them to be able to bring down prices for a long time, if ever. I'm pretty sure I won't be able to get a new one unless I hit the lottery, and hope they don't appreciate in price in the used market. Otherwise I'm stuck with my film Leica's. Not that that's a bad thing.
PF
PF
Michael Markey
Veteran
Another thoughtful thread .
Thank you.
I`m currently cutting back and increasingly relying on my film M bodies .
Thank you.
I`m currently cutting back and increasingly relying on my film M bodies .
kshapero
South Florida Man
Excellent thought rant. Other than film which is 80% of my Photo world, I use Fuji's because I can not afford an M10. I am happy. Using my legacy lenses on the M10, right now, is, alas, only a dream. Maybe one day........
presspass
filmshooter
Your point about the difference between auto focus and manual focus is well made. The Leica digital Ms also allow zone focusing, something many of us have done for years with our film cameras. There is another advantage for the Leicas - if you shoot film and digital at the same time or just need that capability and want to use the same lenses for both, Leica is the only bright frame viewfinder option. True, you can shoot either Canon or Nikon DSLRs and film cameras, but neither provide the bright line framing option and neither lend themselves to zone focus for quick snap shots. Someday I may buy an M10, but for now my digital/film options are confined to an M8, bought new when they came out, and a film Leica. The cropped format M8 can pose issues on the wider end of the spectrum, but I can live with that better than the cost of an M10.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Thanks for the post Bill.
As I get older, my camera choice gets simpler. While sports and news still require a DSLR, my personal shooting has been drawn down to a couple M bodies and a bevy of old glass. Just feels right. And lately, I've been just carrying a Rollei 35. Gives me more time to think.
Best,
-Tim
As I get older, my camera choice gets simpler. While sports and news still require a DSLR, my personal shooting has been drawn down to a couple M bodies and a bevy of old glass. Just feels right. And lately, I've been just carrying a Rollei 35. Gives me more time to think.
Best,
-Tim
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Is this about strictly M10? Then AB is using it professionally. And I don't think he is lonely.
Was it about rangefinders and brightlines?
Winogrand and Cohen used external viewfinder, Bresson used external viewfinders before switching to M.
It doesn't have to be Fuji or Leica these days. MFT camera with Olympus 17mm scale focus, DOF scale lens and external brightline viewfinder will do it.
What is professional photography these days?
Some birds and animals, plus cheesy landscapes and cliche portraits of bimbos in articles by so called professionals placed in gear selling media?
Real estate photography? Weddings? It was done with DSLRs.
I'm not finding this professional photography interesting.
Does interesting photography must have "professional" label? I have zero interest in Elliot Erwitt photography he was paid for as professional. He is huge for me with what he did before, after work.
AB goes after work on the street and his photos went on display and in the book. It is interesting photography.
Another AB in St-Petersburg taking product pictures at work and then wondering on the streets or traveling to take pictures.
I like all three after work work and it is done with Leicas.
Was it about rangefinders and brightlines?
Winogrand and Cohen used external viewfinder, Bresson used external viewfinders before switching to M.
It doesn't have to be Fuji or Leica these days. MFT camera with Olympus 17mm scale focus, DOF scale lens and external brightline viewfinder will do it.
What is professional photography these days?
Some birds and animals, plus cheesy landscapes and cliche portraits of bimbos in articles by so called professionals placed in gear selling media?
Real estate photography? Weddings? It was done with DSLRs.
I'm not finding this professional photography interesting.
Does interesting photography must have "professional" label? I have zero interest in Elliot Erwitt photography he was paid for as professional. He is huge for me with what he did before, after work.
AB goes after work on the street and his photos went on display and in the book. It is interesting photography.
Another AB in St-Petersburg taking product pictures at work and then wondering on the streets or traveling to take pictures.
I like all three after work work and it is done with Leicas.
willie_901
Veteran
Not really.
It is straightforward to operate some "complicated" digital cameras as though they were simple cameras.
However, it does some effort to understand how to operate a "complicated" digital camera as one would operate a simple camera. Fortunately, this is a one-time investment.
The opposite is not true. Occasionally complicated options (in-frame horizontal level indicator, face detection AF, dual storage card slots, WiFi camera operation for example) are actually useful. Of course, it requires some effort to become familiar with these as well.
The new Leica M10-P offers a rear touch-screen LCD, permits LCD image zoom with a camera button or via finger-pinch and focus of said LCD screen, one of those horizontal level indicators, and built-in WiFi for image sharing and remote camera operation. These are useful, but are they a complication?
charjohncarter
Veteran
I'm in the simpler camp too. Along with simpler is vision problems, so either autofocus which I don't like but need OR a nice bright rangefinder which I prefer.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I think Leica raised the price of the M10 a few months ago to $7295, but what is $600 among friends? (A lens for the Fuji?) Actually, for the new Leica shooter, it is not only the cost of the body, but the accompanying lens (say an entry level 35mm Summicron). You simply can't get out of a Leica store for under $10,000. There is something show-stopping about five figures. A similar one lens solution from Fuji is the X100F at $1299. Still, if you want a digital rangefinder (and cache), Leica is the only game in town.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
M9 was more than M10 now, back then one dollar was buying more.
Voigtlander, Zeiss and old RF lenses works on any M including M10.
People are buying Panasonic cameras and Olympus lenses. Sony and Zeiss.
robert blu
quiet photographer
I went for the M10 because: N°1 simplicity, iso, aperture, speed and focus. Done!
N°2: I can use the same lenses I already had for the M7 ( I do not need many lenses...)
In fact I use the M10 more or less as I use the M7...even I never used the wifi module and rarely chimp...
Price is high but because I keep (and use) a camera for years before changing it becomes acceptable, my previous digital was the Leica x1 which I used (still use sometimes) for almost 9 years...I have friends who buy cheaper cameras and change them each two years, sometimes ofter, in the long term they spend much more than what I do...
robert, pure amateur
N°2: I can use the same lenses I already had for the M7 ( I do not need many lenses...)
In fact I use the M10 more or less as I use the M7...even I never used the wifi module and rarely chimp...
Price is high but because I keep (and use) a camera for years before changing it becomes acceptable, my previous digital was the Leica x1 which I used (still use sometimes) for almost 9 years...I have friends who buy cheaper cameras and change them each two years, sometimes ofter, in the long term they spend much more than what I do...
robert, pure amateur
DwF
Well-known
Five figures to purchase a camera and lens is cause for reflection! I can't recall a time where I would consider purchasing a Leica and or Leica lens new, and that is based in large part on the fact that I am not a professional photographer.
Bill, your term "personal work" pretty much hits the nail on the head for me, my activity around making pictures is largely therapeutic. Often if someone asks what I like to shoot, I am at a loss to choose a subject matter because it could be a variety of things but "personal work" is a more apt description of my relationship with photography. Thanks for that!
As for currently produced cameras, I appreciate that Fuji while adding features, pay attention to design making it is easy (easier for sure than Sony) to get to what is needed without much effort. Their cameras are affordable, and they offer OVF (hybrid finder) on two of their models!
David
Out to Lunch
Ventor
The times they are a changin'. I doubt that Leica, even with its current niche luxury goods brand mark-up approach has the resources to compete with the global electronic firms. My take is that it will fold sooner than later. Whatever happens, I hope that a rangefinder camera will survive this process.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Fuji is a coming out with their MF rangefinder soon..something to think about..
the M10 and the even better M10-P are certainly expensive
yet they are by far the most advanced rangefinder cameras ever produced.
They are a great way to go and worth the price,
yet not everyone chooses to spend that much on ANY camera, Leica or not.
yet they are by far the most advanced rangefinder cameras ever produced.
They are a great way to go and worth the price,
yet not everyone chooses to spend that much on ANY camera, Leica or not.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
For me I bought M-E, MM, M 262 and the M 10 because of not only what they are but what they don't have. I plan on selling my M-E and picking up another M 10 by the end of the year. And I shoot Leica M digital for my professional work as well as my personal work.
I went digital in 2005 and at that time if Leica had had a FF digital camera I would have jumped on stat that time. I went out of film kicking and screaming but business, clients and a faced downsize 5 years early forced me to digital. Canon had a FF digital so I went that route. Never enjoyed shooting with it but it did get the job done.
I bought the MM in 2012 along with a 35 Lux FLE and it was a perfect fit. In 2015 I went all digital Leica with no regrets because they fit with the way I see and work. I haven't enjoyed the photographic experience as much as I do now since picking up my Hasselblad 500 C/Ms in the 1980s.
I shoot and have shot all manual for over 40 years so cameras without the automation are really good fits for me. A true rangefinder is perfect for the way I see and work. It's quiet and that is good on the streets as well as annual report and candid work. So I prefer a simple less automated approach. Nice to have a real choice in the sea of the one size fits all approach most other camera makers are taking.
I went digital in 2005 and at that time if Leica had had a FF digital camera I would have jumped on stat that time. I went out of film kicking and screaming but business, clients and a faced downsize 5 years early forced me to digital. Canon had a FF digital so I went that route. Never enjoyed shooting with it but it did get the job done.
I bought the MM in 2012 along with a 35 Lux FLE and it was a perfect fit. In 2015 I went all digital Leica with no regrets because they fit with the way I see and work. I haven't enjoyed the photographic experience as much as I do now since picking up my Hasselblad 500 C/Ms in the 1980s.
I shoot and have shot all manual for over 40 years so cameras without the automation are really good fits for me. A true rangefinder is perfect for the way I see and work. It's quiet and that is good on the streets as well as annual report and candid work. So I prefer a simple less automated approach. Nice to have a real choice in the sea of the one size fits all approach most other camera makers are taking.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Hear, hear! I want an M10-P (would go good with my M4-P), but unless I hit the lottery, I'm not seeing the expendable income necessary to buy one. If I didn't pay any bills for three months, and went on a beans, rice, and Spam diet, I could probably swing it. But I'd be homeless by then. Nowhere to plug the thing in for a recharge puts a crimp in ones enthusiasm for photography.
PF