rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
The size of the M10 is a real attraction. I'm not in a position to upgrade though 
I really notice the differences in the hand when I pick up the M240, then the M9, then a film M. The M10 is more like the film M, right? I hope so.
I really notice the differences in the hand when I pick up the M240, then the M9, then a film M. The M10 is more like the film M, right? I hope so.
:: Mark
Well-known
I just side-graded from the M262 to M10. There are some pros and cons.
Both ergonomics and haptics on the M10 are significantly improved over the M262. The body is the same size as my M7, although it is slightly heavier. The controls are well placed, and while the ISO dial is difficult to use one-handed, it works much better than the plastic disks used on film cameras. The shutter sound is quite different - slightly quieter, and less annoying than the M262’s clonk, but still noisier than the M7.
As a glasses wearer, I do not find a significant improvement with the viewfinder. The eye relief before was practically zero, so presumably a 50% improvement is still practically zero. For me, the 35mm framelines are pretty much the entire field of view - exactly the same as with the M7 (0.72x viewfinder).
There are some downsides. There is no aperture information saved in the image files, even through the camera has an estimate. The battery life is also worse (budget for 1.5x as many batteries as for the M240/262), and oddly there is no image-review-while-shutter-held option - one of my favourite features on the M262.
The main upside, other than haptics, is the excellent and fast live-view implementation. The DNG raw files also integrate much better with iOS thanks to the large preview JPEGs. This makes it possible to use an iPad when travelling - something which was nightmarish with the M262 files due to the low-res preview and Apple Photos refusal to display RAW directly (and shooting RAW+JPEG causes the importer to frequently crash under iOS11).
FWIW, I do not find see any significant difference in image quality, other than improved DR at higher ISOs which makes ISO 3200 and 6400 more usable (but then my 262 never showed any image banding even when pushed heavily, so maybe I was lucky before).
It is a very good camera, but the changes are small and incremental unless haptics are your priority.
Both ergonomics and haptics on the M10 are significantly improved over the M262. The body is the same size as my M7, although it is slightly heavier. The controls are well placed, and while the ISO dial is difficult to use one-handed, it works much better than the plastic disks used on film cameras. The shutter sound is quite different - slightly quieter, and less annoying than the M262’s clonk, but still noisier than the M7.
As a glasses wearer, I do not find a significant improvement with the viewfinder. The eye relief before was practically zero, so presumably a 50% improvement is still practically zero. For me, the 35mm framelines are pretty much the entire field of view - exactly the same as with the M7 (0.72x viewfinder).
There are some downsides. There is no aperture information saved in the image files, even through the camera has an estimate. The battery life is also worse (budget for 1.5x as many batteries as for the M240/262), and oddly there is no image-review-while-shutter-held option - one of my favourite features on the M262.
The main upside, other than haptics, is the excellent and fast live-view implementation. The DNG raw files also integrate much better with iOS thanks to the large preview JPEGs. This makes it possible to use an iPad when travelling - something which was nightmarish with the M262 files due to the low-res preview and Apple Photos refusal to display RAW directly (and shooting RAW+JPEG causes the importer to frequently crash under iOS11).
FWIW, I do not find see any significant difference in image quality, other than improved DR at higher ISOs which makes ISO 3200 and 6400 more usable (but then my 262 never showed any image banding even when pushed heavily, so maybe I was lucky before).
It is a very good camera, but the changes are small and incremental unless haptics are your priority.
Huss
Veteran
Excellent summation.
user237428934
User deletion pending
I had an M10 for one weekend and it is of course a very nice camera. But the improvement to my M240 is so marginal, it's just not worth it (for me). I especially hoped for a better viewing experience with glasses but that was not the case. The slightly better dynamic range was not really noticeable for my style of landscape shooting where especially highlight recovery is important.
raid
Dad Photographer
I never forgave Canon for leaving the FD line behind, so I "skipped" AF cameras for many many years. I was happy with the Canon FD cameras and lenses. I am somewhere "there" with Leica. I am still with my M8 and M9 cameras, and I am happy with them. I have not yet entered the "life beyond M9" stage yet!
willie_901
Veteran
In terms of signal-to-noise ratio, the M10 outperforms the M240 in every way.
Dynamic range depends directly on the S/N at base ISO. Above base ISO, a sensor's conversion gain determines the compromise between dynamic range and sensitivity. Some brands maximize sensitivity at the expense of dynamic range while others make the opposite choice.
Here's the data.
Dynamic range
Shadow region improvement (a measure of ISO invariance – how much noise is due to ISO amplification after the shutter closes)
Raw file S/N vs ISO
Sensor analog noise level vs ISO
Sensor sensitivity (hover over the symbols to ID the cameras)
Whether or not these performance improvements are important will vary from individual to individual.
Likewise, camera handling and other usage differences are important considerations.
It's interesting to note the only the M-246 outperforms the M10. Also, there are relatively few 24 x 36 mm sensor cameras from other brands that outperform the M10. The data indicates a monochrome version of the M10 could be the highest performing 24 X 36 mm sensor camera.
Dynamic range depends directly on the S/N at base ISO. Above base ISO, a sensor's conversion gain determines the compromise between dynamic range and sensitivity. Some brands maximize sensitivity at the expense of dynamic range while others make the opposite choice.
Here's the data.
Dynamic range
Shadow region improvement (a measure of ISO invariance – how much noise is due to ISO amplification after the shutter closes)
Raw file S/N vs ISO
Sensor analog noise level vs ISO
Sensor sensitivity (hover over the symbols to ID the cameras)
Whether or not these performance improvements are important will vary from individual to individual.
Likewise, camera handling and other usage differences are important considerations.
It's interesting to note the only the M-246 outperforms the M10. Also, there are relatively few 24 x 36 mm sensor cameras from other brands that outperform the M10. The data indicates a monochrome version of the M10 could be the highest performing 24 X 36 mm sensor camera.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Seems a pity that they didn't take the opportunity to improve the M10 viewfinder to the same level as that of the Ikon. That was my big hope, along with the smaller body.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
The poster was using sarcasm as a comment?
derision, mockery, ridicule, scorn, sneering, scoffing; irony; cynicism. The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
Mid 16th century: from French sarcasme, or via late Latin from late Greek sarkasmos, from Greek sarkazein ‘tear flesh’, in late Greek ‘gnash the teeth, speak bitterly’ (from sarx, sark- ‘flesh’).
Archlich
Well-known
If the M10 has less banding than the M240/262 cameras (I currently own a 262), I'd certainly...wait for a M10 Typ 262 made from magnesium alloy.
I finally got to hold my M7 after a month with the 262 aboard and, was amazed how thin a Leica could be. The 240/262 series really are fat.
I finally got to hold my M7 after a month with the 262 aboard and, was amazed how thin a Leica could be. The 240/262 series really are fat.
:: Mark
Well-known
The problem with the photostophotons charts is that they use the camera ISO setting rather than an independent determination.
It is useful to also look at the DXO data, which shows that at the same camera ISO setting, the M10 is slightly less sensitive than the M240. DXO compensate for this, with the result that their sensor performance measurements (which notably exclude things such as banding or sharpness) show almost no improvement.
My experience of the M10 files so far is that they are practically indistinguishable from the M262 in real world shots below ISO3200. The straight-out-of-camera results look better, but that is because of the default processing. When images are processed equivalently (mostly a stronger curve setting applied to the M262), at lower ISOs there is no meaningful difference.
The M10 is a great camera, but if you are buying it in the hope of better image quality you probably should try playing with some RAW files first to see whether or not it will make a difference with what you shoot.
It is useful to also look at the DXO data, which shows that at the same camera ISO setting, the M10 is slightly less sensitive than the M240. DXO compensate for this, with the result that their sensor performance measurements (which notably exclude things such as banding or sharpness) show almost no improvement.
My experience of the M10 files so far is that they are practically indistinguishable from the M262 in real world shots below ISO3200. The straight-out-of-camera results look better, but that is because of the default processing. When images are processed equivalently (mostly a stronger curve setting applied to the M262), at lower ISOs there is no meaningful difference.
The M10 is a great camera, but if you are buying it in the hope of better image quality you probably should try playing with some RAW files first to see whether or not it will make a difference with what you shoot.
a.noctilux
Well-known
I second Mark for M10's files vs M 240 family.
User of those M along with M10 for one year now, I don't see much "improved files" in real life use.
- if the thinner body is a must, go for M10
- if battery life is important, keep the M
- at first I appreciated the M10 VF more comfortable than previous, but in use real life, the other Ms are as nice to use VF
- when I need x1.25 loupe for longer lenses, the need of VF adapter is not very clever for dayly use
So for me M10 is nice to have but it has many things less than M 240 family.
As side note...
My favorite M right now is M-D bought after M10 :angel:.
User of those M along with M10 for one year now, I don't see much "improved files" in real life use.
- if the thinner body is a must, go for M10
- if battery life is important, keep the M
- at first I appreciated the M10 VF more comfortable than previous, but in use real life, the other Ms are as nice to use VF
- when I need x1.25 loupe for longer lenses, the need of VF adapter is not very clever for dayly use
So for me M10 is nice to have but it has many things less than M 240 family.
As side note...
My favorite M right now is M-D bought after M10 :angel:.
willie_901
Veteran
Doesn't Leica Use Just One ISO Standard?
Doesn't Leica Use Just One ISO Standard?
An independent determination is impractical as there are at least four different ISO standards (link).
DxO has defined yet another standard that is not used by any manufactuer.
Unless Leica has changed their ISO standard usage between the M240 and M10, I don't see what the problem is.
The goal for digital camera design is to minimize electronic noise sources to the point where photon noise is the dominant source of uncertainty as sensor underexposure increases.[1] For many newer designs this goal has been met because read noise levels remain consent, to within ~1/3 stop, as the cameras's ISO parameter increases.
1. The camera's photon transfer characteristics describe how read noise, photon noise and dark noise affect IQ as exposure (signal level) decreases (see fig 1, 2 and 3 here.)
Doesn't Leica Use Just One ISO Standard?
An independent determination is impractical as there are at least four different ISO standards (link).
DxO has defined yet another standard that is not used by any manufactuer.
Unless Leica has changed their ISO standard usage between the M240 and M10, I don't see what the problem is.
The goal for digital camera design is to minimize electronic noise sources to the point where photon noise is the dominant source of uncertainty as sensor underexposure increases.[1] For many newer designs this goal has been met because read noise levels remain consent, to within ~1/3 stop, as the cameras's ISO parameter increases.
1. The camera's photon transfer characteristics describe how read noise, photon noise and dark noise affect IQ as exposure (signal level) decreases (see fig 1, 2 and 3 here.)
Huss
Veteran
Some people just want the latest model, and there's nothing wrong with that.
But for me, I don't see any difference in the images, but I do see a huuuge difference in price when you compare what a like new M240 goes for vs an M10, due to all those who had to dump their cameras when the M10 came out.
ian_watts
Ian Watts
I bought a brand new M 240 only a couple of weeks ago for a good (UK) price. I’d already tried the M10 and had been impressed by its size and viewfinder but the M 240 was nearly half the price of the M10 and, not really liking digital, it wasn’t a difficult decision to make. I’m actually quite impressed by the M 240. Functionally it seems like a real step up from the M8/9 class that I have owned previously and does everything I currently want from a digital M camera. If I was more digitally inclined I might have persuaded myself that I needed the even more polished M10 but I can’t summon that degree of enthusiasm.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It seems with M10 you still able to see images after ISO6400, not just difference.
I think, it is significant achievement for Leica AG. Before this, they were still propelling the air, while rest of the industry was already in the Space for more than decade.
Where this $6K+ camera is still in the horse buggy is IS and dust reduction.
But it gives huge room to grow and charge extra thousands.
Look how M10 users are screaming about availability to take five images in the row.
Something what $200 FujiFilm P&S was able to do in 2007...
Here is Leica AG M's future line:
M11 as big as M240, but with IS and DR.
M12 same as M11, but M10 size.
I'm ready to wait passionately to M10 become M8 priced at M12 release.
Thanks in advance for those whom you have mentioned as "who had to dump".
:: Mark
Well-known
I believe that is what they have effectively done. What the M10 appears to do is equivalent to setting an M240 series camera to over-expose by some (small) amount and then pulling this down in software with a stronger curve (applied to JPEGs, but also by default with the Adobe RAW profiles). This is why people report less highlight headroom and more shadow recoverability.
What matters about the DXO methodology is not their absolute ISO determination, but that they use the same methodology consistently - making comparisons valid.
The photonstophons data is interesting, but it shows my Olympus M-M1II performing better than an M240, even with its 1/4 size sensor. This is obviously wrong when you compare actual images and it is because the manufacturer ISO labelling is not directly comparable.
Huss
Veteran
Thanks in advance for those whom you have mentioned as "who had to dump".
Bless them and their fickle wayward hearts.
It's how I got a beautiful like new M240 100 Anniversary edition.
aka the M100.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
I'll wait until the M15 comes out...if Leica or me for that matter..are still around...
Stephen G
Well-known
Funny I had M8, then M240.. sold it and went to film for a year.
The M7 is really a very nice camera. And for glasses wearers the 0.58x finder is nice.
Maybe I'll catch the M10 at a deal when the M10-P or MM10 inevitably is released.
Having had the M240, and used the M10 EVF on the X113, I wasn't satisfied enough with the incremental changes to jump immediately.
I actually spent a lot of time considering the M262.. lighter, not much bigger, and better batter than M10.
Seeing my used M8 only depreciate another 10% or so over 3 years vs my new M240 depreciate 50-60% over the same length made me a bit less excited on another new M.
The initial reports of ISO dial issues on the M10 did not excited me either.
Funnily enough M8 never needed service whereas my new M240 had 1 warranty repair plus 1 paid CLA..
For now I will wait until the next M*something is released and the used market shifts.
The M7 is really a very nice camera. And for glasses wearers the 0.58x finder is nice.
Maybe I'll catch the M10 at a deal when the M10-P or MM10 inevitably is released.
Having had the M240, and used the M10 EVF on the X113, I wasn't satisfied enough with the incremental changes to jump immediately.
I actually spent a lot of time considering the M262.. lighter, not much bigger, and better batter than M10.
Seeing my used M8 only depreciate another 10% or so over 3 years vs my new M240 depreciate 50-60% over the same length made me a bit less excited on another new M.
The initial reports of ISO dial issues on the M10 did not excited me either.
Funnily enough M8 never needed service whereas my new M240 had 1 warranty repair plus 1 paid CLA..
For now I will wait until the next M*something is released and the used market shifts.
willie_901
Veteran
It's All About The Signal and the Noise
It's All About The Signal and the Noise
It is not obviously wrong. The total signal level depends on the sensor area.
The total signal level also depends on quantum efficiency, full-well capacity, conversion gain and other design factors.
The noise floor (input-refered noise) must be considered as well. The Olympus sensor has about half the read noise (data) compared to all of the Leica 24 X 36 mm cameras except for the M10.
The lower noise floor impacts the total read noise levels of the raw files data.
In other words, sensor area is important, but sensor area alone does not necessarily dominate the raw file S/N.
There is no data I am aware of that shows the ISO parameter, which is actually a calibrated exposure index setting, is calibrated differently for the M240 and M10. Even the DxO data shows the M10 Sports (low-light) performance is better than the M240's. Wouldn't this indicate the exposure index calibration (ISO parameter) is similar for both cameras since DxO computes the calibrated exposure index independently of Leica?
What the photonstophons data do shows is one reason the S/N is different is because the M10's has a superior noise floor level.
It's All About The Signal and the Noise
It is not obviously wrong. The total signal level depends on the sensor area.
The total signal level also depends on quantum efficiency, full-well capacity, conversion gain and other design factors.
The noise floor (input-refered noise) must be considered as well. The Olympus sensor has about half the read noise (data) compared to all of the Leica 24 X 36 mm cameras except for the M10.
The lower noise floor impacts the total read noise levels of the raw files data.
In other words, sensor area is important, but sensor area alone does not necessarily dominate the raw file S/N.
There is no data I am aware of that shows the ISO parameter, which is actually a calibrated exposure index setting, is calibrated differently for the M240 and M10. Even the DxO data shows the M10 Sports (low-light) performance is better than the M240's. Wouldn't this indicate the exposure index calibration (ISO parameter) is similar for both cameras since DxO computes the calibrated exposure index independently of Leica?
What the photonstophons data do shows is one reason the S/N is different is because the M10's has a superior noise floor level.