Thank you

"Here’s a question I can’t answer, one which I really don’t know the answer but truly wish I did. Is a digital Leica, the M240 or M10, a worthwhile camera?"

In terms of dynamic range and sensitivity the M10 compares well to current DSLRs. The M-Monochrome's sensitivity outperforms all current cameras with 24 X 36 mm cameras. The M-240's performance is lower. But this alone would not stop me from buying a M240 instead of a DSLR - especially if I owned M and, or LTM lenses.

My conclusions are based on Bill Claff's data. Claff's results are objective as they are computed from statistical analysis of unrendered raw-file data. This data is not normalized to differences in sensor area, but this is not important for the cameras I chose to compare below.

Dynamic Range vs ISO. Note, while Claff's term photographic dynamic range is always lower than the engineering definition of dynamic range, the difference is a constant.

The M10 is iso-invariant to within 1/3 stop. This indicates ISO electronic amplification adds practically no noise to sensor output at the native (base) ISO setting. In other words, photon noise dominates perceived image quality until ISO settings are extremely high.

Input-referred read noise indicates the relative nose level of the sensor assembly when no light is present. It does not include noise sources from the ADC or order electronic circuits. Again, the M10 does very well.

Perceived image quality is affected by other factors. Besides lens rendering, sensor cover glass thickness, IR-filter characteristics, color-filter array properties and micro-lens assembly design play important roles.

The M10 is worthwhile by any criteria I can imagine. The M240 is a cost-effective option for this who own M and, or LTM lenses. The M-Monochrome stands alone. A monochrome version of the M10 would significantly outperform any other 24 X 34mm camera on the market today.
 
Here is my question. Do you have or do you want a digital Leica? And most important and a real help in clarifying my thoughts - why. Thank you for your help.
____________________

Hello Bill, briefly: Do I want a digital Leica? Yes, M rangefinder type. Why? M’s have been my constant companions for over 30 years. 1) Quick, you can be blazing fast with a Leica M – I have only missed shots when I have not been prepared. 2) Compact, 2 bodies and a few lenses take up little space. I use something else if I need to use long lenses etc. Years ago when it was announced that Leica was making a digital M, I looked at my M2, and thought: Just do that. It looks like they more or less have.

Also, Bill, thanks for posing the question, but may I be a bit cheeky and say, we know that you know all this. You were among the photographer/writers who were an influence on me as a young photographer.

Just for fun, may I quote (from the last century): “The rangefinder camera will always
 surpass the single-lens reflex as an all-around available-light camera... For one
 thing, the viewing through a simple optical viewfinder will always be brighter and contrastier than a
 view that has passed through a lens and a viewing
 screen. ...Since good
 seeing is a vital factor for good picture-taking, ...Beyond this, the
 rangefinder consistently provides more accurate focusing...with wide-angle and normal lenses used at high apertures that allow for
 little or no focusing error. The reasons are complex, but it is a no-contest situation: these normal and near-normal lenses are the workhorses of available-light photography”. Bill Pierce, Leica Manual, 15th edition, 1973
 

Attachments

  • Bill Pierce in his darkroom.jpg
    Bill Pierce in his darkroom.jpg
    37.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Bike Tourist said:
I have sold off most of my Nikon equipment in order to purchase an M 262 (not mentioned in your OP but presumably included in your M 240 reference). There were several reasons or justifications or excuses for this turn of events.

I suspect nostalgia played a part. Back when I first became a photographer in the army, in Germany, in the 1950s, because the army said I was, I soon replaced the government-furnished 4x5 Pressman and Rolleiflex with an M3 furnished by me. Publications weren't supposed to like any pictures taken with the 35mm format, but I never told them and they never asked.


Recently, having ridden the microstock bandwagon for many years and seeing the incredible dilution and diminished sales in that segment, I decided that I was getting too old to try to derive any more retirement income from that dead horse. So what was left for me? Well, to just shoot personal stuff and have fun. When that decision was reached, the only camera that came to mind was an M and the 262 seemed to be made for me, except the price, which seemed almost within reach. It was. And even a 50/2.4 Elmarit. (I thus avoided taping a foil pinhole over the lens flange.)


The " sacrifice" was totally worth it for me. I'm as creative as an old guy can be. I feel I have control over the images. With manual focus I can place it where I think it should be. I don't agonize over what lens to use. The rig is so light I take it everywhere. People seem less intimidated by the M. Nobody pays any attention.


Sorry to be so wordy.
Click to expand...
Great story!
 
I have the same boring answer to "why" as many others here.

I enjoyed and became proficient with film RF cameras (namely Leica M) and I wanted to be able to shoot digitally (as well as film). The digital Leica M cameras were obvious...

I have an M9 and M240 now. Love them both along with my film M bodies. I occaisonally go out with one of each (film and digital) and the switch between them is so seamless I actually sometimes forget which camera is in hand. That's not really an exaggeration. Its whenever I have to make a mental note/recollection of ISO that I most notice the camera in hand. BTW, I love the ability to change ISO on the digital at any time. That is one of the main differences between film and digital in terms of image acquisition. Oh, and the "A" setting is a main difference too. I'm getting lazy and letting the aperture priority make decisions for me ;)
 
willie_901 said:
"Here’s a question I can’t answer, one which I really don’t know the answer but truly wish I did. Is a digital Leica, the M240 or M10, a worthwhile camera?"

In terms of dynamic range and sensitivity the M10 compares well to current DSLRs. The M-Monochrome's sensitivity outperforms all current cameras with 24 X 36 mm cameras. The M-240's performance is lower. But this alone would not stop me from buying a M240 instead of a DSLR - especially if I owned M and, or LTM lenses.

My conclusions are based on Bill Claff's data. Claff's results are objective as they are computed from statistical analysis of unrendered raw-file data. This data is not normalized to differences in sensor area, but this is not important for the cameras I chose to compare below.

Dynamic Range vs ISO. Note, while Claff's term photographic dynamic range is always lower than the engineering definition of dynamic range, the difference is a constant.

The M10 is iso-invariant to within 1/3 stop. This indicates ISO electronic amplification adds practically no noise to sensor output at the native (base) ISO setting. In other words, photon noise dominates perceived image quality until ISO settings are extremely high.

Input-referred read noise indicates the relative nose level of the sensor assembly when no light is present. It does not include noise sources from the ADC or order electronic circuits. Again, the M10 does very well.

Perceived image quality is affected by other factors. Besides lens rendering, sensor cover glass thickness, IR-filter characteristics, color-filter array properties and micro-lens assembly design play important roles.

The M10 is worthwhile by any criteria I can imagine. The M240 is a cost-effective option for this who own M and, or LTM lenses. The M-Monochrome stands alone. A monochrome version of the M10 would significantly outperform any other 24 X 34mm camera on the market today.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the links to Claff's work. Where does he get all this data? Does he use a RAW file from all those cameras on his list? If he's using actual files from these cameras, then you might want to look at the Fuji X-Pro2. Its data makes it look like a really great deal, given its price compared to Leica.
 
Bill Pierce said:
...

Here is my question. Do you have or do you want a digital Leica? And most important and a real help in clarifying my thoughts - why. Thank you for your help.
Click to expand...

Had a Leica M8 at one time and a number of other film Leicas. But I have found out I'm not that prolific with rangefinders or small format film.

Nowadays I'm a firm advocate of the Sony A7 and its brethren. Although I only have one original A7 model camera and never even held any of the bigger or faster brothers, I can relate to the design philosophy and ergonomics. If only it were made of metal...:rolleyes:


Some say there's a menu in the Sony A7. Some say the lens mount is loose or that the sensor suffers from reflections. I cannot confirm any of this.

All I know is that shooting it in manual mode with Canon FD glass makes me feel like a certain tame racing driver :D :D

The days of Leica, rangefinders and small format film have passed for me.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
Thanks for the links to Claff's work. Where does he get all this data? Does he use a RAW file from all those cameras on his list? If he's using actual files from these cameras, then you might want to look at the Fuji X-Pro2. Its data makes it look like a really great deal, given its price compared to Leica.
Click to expand...

Claff gets data from volunteers. On his web site he writes, "Data is measured from raw files taken to my specifications and contributed by people from around the world.". Claff also computes results from data available at DxOMark. He believes the user generated data is "more reliable".

Claff does use actual un-rendered data from raw files. This means any, automatic data filtering or other manipulations done in-camera before the final raw file is stored will affect the results. Some brands do modify the raw data at very high camera ISO settings. Fortunately, raw-data filtering can be revealed using double Fourier transform analysis.

My primary camera happens to be an X-Pro 2. In my experience, the dual conversion-gain sensor design actually makes a difference. I am very pleased with its performance. However, Bill Pierce only wanted to know about the Leica Ms. I included the Nikon 850 as this is one of the best current DSLRs.
 
Bill Pierce said:
Here’s a question I can’t answer, one which I really don’t know the answer but truly wish I did. Is a digital Leica, the M240 or M10, a worthwhile camera? I’m not talking about whether it’s affordable or worth the money. I’m asking how it stacks up against other digital cameras.
Click to expand...

Are they capable of making great photos? Of course. Are they the best in class from a pixel peeping perspective? No. For me, Leica cameras are special if you like to manually focus with a mechanical rangefinder and like a smallish FF camera (with small lenses). If this does not matter to you, then there could be better options. In regards to money, I would rather spend the same cash on a Fuji GFX. Of course this is different, but it would fit what I want to do better. I`ve moved on from Leica, but I will always understand why some use them... it is the only game in town in some ways.
 
Dear Bill,
We use a lot of different things but mostly I've used D3 and X100(s/f).

More and more I use the X100F (I am a petite woman of a certain age and I no longer can carry two big Nikon bodies all day). However! You will not like the optical finder in low light on the Fuji. The Leica is much better. My husband's and my last Leicas were M6 and, if the finder is similar, it is much superior in poor light.



Cordialmente,
Mme. O
 
Doesn't matter how I judge any camera.

Eventually, it always comes down to the glass I put on it.

The ability to shoot my M glass full frame would always win out in the end.
 
I still have my M240 and after some time with it I have come to the conclusion that the digital M is a camera in search of a more sophisticated metering system.

The M series essentially still use the same metering system that the analog cameras did. Except negative film was an excellent insurance policy against exposure errors. As we all know film fails gracefully, while digital executes a full face plant, especially when it comes to overexposure.

The current M meter is dumb and easily fooled. Most people take a test shot, look at the histogram and make an adjustment before shooting again. That's fine if you are shooting at a leisurely pace or your subject is a still life, but its insufficient for complex or rapidly changing lighting situations.

Leica should rework the rangefinder unit and figure out how they can get a matrix meter to read off the prism block or something along those lines.

Owning the 240 has been an exercise in frustration. On one had it is a digital M and the results can be spectacular. Even the fat 240 body feels like you are shooting with an M camera. But the metering system is mediocre at best and Leica really needs to find another solution.

PS: I have shot with a light meter and manual film bodies for about 30 years, so it's not that I don't understand how to use my tools
 
Bill Pierce said:
Harry -

Would you suggest using a handheld incident meter in some situations with a digital M?
Click to expand...

Hey Bill. I tried it and it works fairly well. You will still get blown highlights if the brightest areas exceed what the sensor is capable of capturing above 18% gray, where as a more sophisticated meter would probably attempt to compensate for that.

Something like the highlight metering mode found in the D750 would be perfect for a digital M camera
 
Even though the M240 auto-bracketing feature is has limited fleibility, in many situations auto-bracketing aperture is useful. With raw files you would make three exposures with 1/2 stop differences. In some situations one-stop brackets could be appropriate.

In post-production you keep the image with the best exposure and delete the other two.

Now the meter estimate is just a guide to get you close.
 
Harry Lime said:
Hey Bill. I tried it and it works fairly well. You will still get blown highlights if the brightest areas exceed what the sensor is capable of capturing above 18% gray, where as a more sophisticated meter would probably attempt to compensate for that.

Something like the highlight metering mode found in the D750 would be perfect for a digital M camera
Click to expand...

When we were shooting for the “colorful news weekly,” we shot a lot of color transparency film under somewhat hectic conditions. With an incident meter, it was possible to come up with a film speed rating (usually about 1/3 or 1/2 stop under the ISO rating) that pretty much preserved highlight detail. Of course, you were metering the light falling on the meter and that had to be representative of the light falling on the main subject. To over simplify the situation, it worked better than reflected, through-the-lens readings - a lot better in fast breaking situations where you certainly couldn’t bracket your exposures. Perhaps that meter has a place in digital photography.

The ability to render overexposed highlights as detailess will forever link transparency film and digital photography. Even now I use a handheld incident meter shooting digital in the studio. I think I’ll start experimenting with it in the field. There’s going to be one problem. Most of the zoom lenses for still use aren’t marked in T-stops and their transmission wide open can often be considerably less than the maximum f/stop would indicate. Thank goodness I mostly use primes. I honestly don’t know if an incident meter could be an important tool in the field for digital photography, but I’ll play around for awhile and get back to you.
 
I haven't read every post in the thread so sorry if this is redundant. I had an M8.2 for awhile and shot a year long project in B&W with it. I liked it enough but the threat that it might need service from Leica ,which would be expensive and likely take a long time, bugged me. As a working photographer I like to have at least 2 identical bodies in case one goes down. In the Fuji system I can afford that, plus 10 lenses. I can't afford 2 leica bodies and 4 modern lenses, plus I don't want to carry around $15,000+ value in equipment. As time goes by, I'm much less concerned about sharpeness, bokeh, and form factors. Getting interesting contents in front of any camera makes for results.
 
twopointeight said:
I haven't read every post in the thread so sorry if this is redundant. I had an M8.2 for awhile and shot a year long project in B&W with it. I liked it enough but the threat that it might need service from Leica ,which would be expensive and likely take a long time, bugged me. As a working photographer I like to have at least 2 identical bodies in case one goes down. In the Fuji system I can afford that, plus 10 lenses. I can't afford 2 leica bodies and 4 modern lenses, plus I don't want to carry around $15,000+ value in equipment. As time goes by, I'm much less concerned about sharpeness, bokeh, and form factors. Getting interesting contents in front of any camera makes for results.
Click to expand...

No question that the Leica is one of many good camera choices. In the film days it was the dependable workhorse for many photographers - and as affordable as any other similar camera. And then came the autographed editions and the colored leathers. The Leica became both a good camera and a conspicuous consumption item. That seems to be holding true for the current digital Leicas. But, is it a better camera than the Fujis that also have bright line finders. No, it’s a DIFFERENT camera. For example, it’s bright line finder is brighter and more usable in dim light than the X Pro’s. But it’s lack of an EVF means it can’t handle long lenses or macro work as well as the Fujis. Oh - and it’s manual focus which is both a good and a bad thing depending on what you are doing.

The Fuji is more versatile. With the M10, Leitz seems to realize that the simplicity of a still camera that has limits but can still handle what most photographers do most of the time is actually an important advantage. But, you can also set up the Fuji so that you rarely dive into its menu or Q screen. In the end, they are tools which produce images of very similar quality, but, potentially, in very different ways. In other words, they are just different tools and a carpenter uses many tools. It’s just that a saw doesn’t cost $7500 and uses blades that cost a third of that.
 
I bought an M8 in 2007 and enjoyed it. It still works. I now occasionally use the Leica T and TL2 - both underrated cameras. Their user interface is terrific.
But if I really want to get the shot and have the focus be spot on, I grab the Panasonic G9 - a great camera with excellent PanaLeica lenses.
When I am no hurry and in excellent light, I will use the Sigma Quattro SD H over anything from Leica.
As for the M8? My eyes are too old for rangefinder focusing. RF was a great tool in the 1920s all the way through to the 1980s but is now greatly surpassed by modern autofocusing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom