Upgrade to the M 10?

[Huss]

Now that got your attention.. today I checked one out for the first time at the Leica Store, and while I was there I also checked out the SL. I had my M240 along to compare, even though I of course could have used one of theirs.
So. I don't get why people w/ M240s are dumping them like they are dipped in urine and encrusted in ebola. Yeah the M10 is a little smaller, yeah it's view finder is a little bigger and yeah it has that iso dial.
But. It's a little smaller. Is it worth $3500 more for that? Not to me. It's view finder is a little bigger but I had to compare it side by side w/ the 240 to see the difference. You will not be able to see the 28mm frame lines with glasses on. Is that worth $3500? Not to me. The ISO dial/knob - on my M240 I push one button and turn one dial. It takes a second. On the M10 I have to carefully hold the knob, pull up till it releases, then turn. To me this is a wash. Worth $3500 more? Nope. I don't use video so that's neither here nor there. Smaller battery with shorter life? Worth $3500 more? Nope.
It does have a sensor that is, umm, more sensitive but I hardly ever shoot over 1600 ISO. I can see this being useful to some so that is an improvement. But most low light pics I've seen are those of people taking shots of some drunk at a bar to post on the web, or a no-name cover band at a no-name bar, to post on the web. The best low light pics I've seen, interestingly enough, have been taken on real film. Which is usually 1600 ISO or lower.
If I didn't have an M already, then I totally get why one would get the M10. It's the latest model. But I just don't get this mad panic rush to unload the M by current owners to get the M10. Unless it is just a need to have the latest thing. Your pictures will not be any better.
As for peeps in the used market, now is your time! Buy a mint M240 for $3k-$3.5K while you can before everyone else realizes that that is a fantastic price for a great camera.

Now the SL. Wow. I get that because the built in EVF, with the little joystick that allows you to moved the magnified focus point around the screen is just great. No need to focus and recompose like you would with an M, you hold the composition, focus where you want, take the shot. Awesome. Focus and recompose can cause the focus point to shift. Not with the SL. The way its built, the way it feels, the way it works as a tool, the SL rocks. I can see my pics improving w/ that camera as focus will not be missed using my M lenses wide open, you know if the exposure is correct before you take the pic, you know the exact composition before you take the pic.
The external optional EVF on the M10 is waaay lower spec than the SL. And is a clunky add on. The optional EVF on the M240 is kinda poopy but at least it is small, you still get to see the correct composition, and with a little effort can hit spot on focus. The biggest win for it is that you can buy the Olympus version for $100 mint/used.

Yeah for me, with an M240 already the M10 does not make much sense. The SL - there definitely is an argument for that.

I've read claims that the images from the M10 are much 'better' than that from the M240. Here's the thing, w/ digital photography you can pretty much make a digital file look however you want. Ashwin Rao posted a really nice review, with lots of great pics, on Stevehuff. But looking at those pics did not tell me anything that the camera did, but what he did in post process. Which was to add lots of vignette, crank on the contrast, and add the clarity slider. The result is something that masks what the native image is. But does that matter if the photographer is going to add a lot of post process? And if it doesn't matter, what is the point of trading in a camera that already can do that?

Anyway, that's my take! 😀

 

[MCTuomey]

Good write-up and thanks for sharing. Pretty sure I'm not ordering one soon, maybe next generation, maybe not at all. I'm leaning more and more toward mirror less.

 

[Rob-F]

Thanks for that review!

 

[Dante_Stella]

Or put another way, I guess, is that the person who buys a $6,500 Leica becomes a sucker when he buys the same $6,500 Leica to replace it?

I don't see a lot of value in the new camera until it has the level reinstalled and has a Monochrom counterpart with exactly the same controls. I actually enjoy having a 240 and 246 that share all of exactly the same accessories, especially batteries.

I suspect there will be a lot of introspection by M240 "upgraders" to the M10 when the higher-resolution Ms come out (as is pretty much inevitable).

Dante

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

Well there is the fact that the M10 is finally the right thickness, so it actually feels as though you have a Leica M in your hands. The difference is striking.

Since I am only buying one virtually, so I can afford it.

 

[Huss]

Or put another way, I guess, is that the person who buys a $6,500 Leica becomes a sucker when he buys the same $6,500 Leica to replace it?

Dante

Couple of points. I can understand buying an M10 new if you don't already have an M240 because, for the same money, why not get the most recent one?
But calling that person a sucker? I dunno... You could buy a $6500 M240 for $3500 (something I did). Then later buy that $6500 M10 for $3500 when the M11 shows up and the masses make the leap again.

Well there is the fact that the M10 is finally the right thickness, so it actually feels as though you have a Leica M in your hands. The difference is striking.

I specifically looked for the striking difference, and yes it definitely is thinner. But it made me realize that all the griping about the thickness of the M240 is unwarranted. And I'm guilty of having been one of those. Comparing the two side by side, one just felt a bit more substantial. And still felt excellent. Then when u consider that that thinness in the M10 came because of using a smaller battery that holds a much lower charge, well it makes it seem that the direction it's going to is, how shall I say, far more dentist like..
I guess that is why they introduced the pro SL camera, which not only has AF lenses, but utilizes M lenses better than M cameras can (if nailing focus is the objective).

 

[user237428934]

Well there is the fact that the M10 is finally the right thickness, so it actually feels as though you have a Leica M in your hands. The difference is striking.

Since I am only buying one virtually, so I can afford it.

When I hold my 240, then I already have a Leica M in my hand. I suppose you wanted to say "a film Leica M" ? For me the difference of the M10 and 240 in size is not relevant.

 

[Archlich]

Why people ditching their 240 for the M10? Because they have disposable income to justify it! Nothing wrong with that.

 

[fad gadget]

I have an SL, traded it for my M240. The M10 is a substantial improvement over the M240, I've had mine for three weeks and and if you can't see the improvements, I'm not sure what's wrong.

 

[Nowhereman]

...If I didn't have an M already, then I totally get why one would get the M10. It's the latest model...Your pictures will not be any better...

Here's the crux: of course, it's not whether it's the latest model; apart from handling and performance considerations what is important is the color rendition. Many M9 users were not satisfied with the color rendition of the M240. This has been well documented by Marc Williams ("fotografz"), who has shown conclusively, as far as many people are concerned, that skin tones in M240 are off and to fix them makes other colors go out of whack; some other people feel that custom camera profiles can fix this. I don't think so and prefer the M9 color rendition.

The impression I have of the M10 is that operationally it’s night and day from the M9, and feels like the Leica M that we all wanted when the M8 was released. From a friend who has had one for a couple of weeks, I get the impression that with a few adjustments in Lightroom one can get pretty close to the M9 look — though he thinks that there is still something inexplicably special about that look. The M9 was a challenge, especially in low light, but sometimes challenges pay off in better images, like using film. Probably with the M10 one may have to "rough up" the image somewhat. The M10 B&W conversions look very good, though it seems that the MM might be better but, again, depending on post-processing, it could really be splitting hairs. That is my judgment at this stage until I get my M10, assuming my dealer in Paris has received mine when I arrive there next week.

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

 

[pyeh]

Huss,
Thank you for your nice collection of thoughts on the M240 vs M10 vs SL. I like hearing opinions, and I respect yours in particular. Your view accords very closely to mine, and mine have been formed, like yours, by owning an M240 and handling the SL and M10 in a Leica store.
The only thing I differ from you on is that I never liked my M240, coming from my M9s, and I venture to say there are a few Leica owners who feel that way, that somehow Leica lost the plot with the M240, wesentlich-wise as well as in form and in image output. At least I did anyway. I totally agree that functionally the M10 is no better than the M240 in any substantial way, and there's no reason to take a bath financially by trading up.
As a small point of detail, I read in one of the several interviews of Stefan Daniel and Jesko von Oeynhausen that the new slimness was achieved by rearranging the electronic boards side by side, as well as by reducing the battery size.
The SL is a very competent camera and deserves to succeed for Leica, I feel.

 

[Huss]

I have an SL, traded it for my M240. The M10 is a substantial improvement over the M240, I've had mine for three weeks and and if you can't see the improvements, I'm not sure what's wrong.

Post some pics you took with your M240, and some you took with your M10.
It will be interesting to see how they have progressed from one camera to the other.

 

[Huss]

Why people ditching their 240 for the M10? Because they have disposable income to justify it! Nothing wrong with that.

Amen! That's what fuels the second hand market. Bless them.

 

[Keith]

The thickness matters ... really? I find my 240 to be ideal in my hands ... then again so is my M2. Come to think of it I really like my OM1 and oddly my Crown Graphic feels great as well.

Obviously no hope for me as a photgrapher!

 

[Huss]

This has been well documented by Marc Williams ("fotografz"), who has shown conclusively, as far as many people are concerned, that skin tones in M240 are off and to fix them makes other colors go out of whack; some other people feel that custom camera profiles can fix this. I don't think so and prefer the M9 color rendition.

And yet I have had no issues with skin tones on the M240. It's easy for one person to show poor results, because I have no idea how they got to them. When I don't see it in my work, why should I think they are off?

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Now that got your attention..

So. I don't get why people w/ M240s are dumping them like they are dipped in urine and encrusted in ebola.
But I just don't get this mad panic rush to unload the M by current owners to get the M10.

I don't see this rush manifested in M240s flooding onto the market. Not in the UK anyway, yet. the S/H market in M9 and M240 is very quiet here. Now that may be because they are not here in volume yet, my local dealer still waits for the demo.
The noise is from the early adopters who, having paid the cash, want the world to know and play at which card is fastest discussions.
Personally I was hoping for more, I know that may just require patience, so the M9s would be tempted.

 

[willie_901]

The M10 is an excellent upgrade path for M8/M9 owners... and perhaps for a relatively minuscule number of first-time digital M buyers.

The M240's SNR (based on statistical analyses of un-rendered raw data) is only about 1 stop lower than than the Nikon D4. This is an excellent level performance.

I would hope the M10's IQ is at noticeably better than the M240 series'. The difference won't be at ISOs above 1600. The difference will be in the shadow region IQ and the maximum dynamic range at base ISO. Another improvement might be less banding and reduced blue/green shifts in shadows at higher ISOs.

Perhaps the M10 will close the gap. It's too early for any objective data on these issues.

As Huss (and others) point out: is the presumed SNR/DR improvement, larger view-finder and ISO dial worth the cost of trading in or selling a M240 for a M10? I have no idea.

 

[Godfrey]

You didn't like the M10 much more or less than the M you have or the SL.

Huzzah. Isn't it great you don't need to buy one? 😎

G

 

[johannielscom]

The SL rocks. Both design and function. I love EVF shooting, and will graduate to an SL from my Sony A7 if I ever can afford one.

RF or SLR shooting without the focus peaking is arcane to me. I only shoot one rangefinder for 'that vintage feel', my Leica II. And one SLR, a Canon EF (the 1978 FD mount camera).

No need to pay modern prices for an old-skool experience 😀

 

[Nowhereman]

And yet I have had no issues with skin tones on the M240. It's easy for one person to show poor results, because I have no idea how they got to them. When I don't see it in my work, why should I think they are off?
Here are a few examples I took with the M240, with no issues with skin tones, in different lighting conditions - fluorescent tube office lighting, ring light and outdoors...

Certainly if you have no issues with the skin tones with the M240 it's understandable that you are happy with the camera's color rendition. The colors I see in your pictures indeed exhibit some of the issues of the M240's color rendition that I meant. However, I don't want to say more, in line with Braque's dictum, "How do you talk about colour?" — you have to see it. Also, the M9 vs M240 color battle has been fought intensively enough and both sides are right, in that that is how they see it. No point in trying to convince anyone.

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine