I had the chance today to play with a demo M10 at the local Leica store.
The camera is a bit slimmer than the M240, but I didn't find this to be better or worse. I'm quite neutral about this point. The viewfinder is clearly larger, and a bit brighter than the M240, and that is probably the most important improvement of the M10. The ISO dial is as expected, no particular problem with it, but I would have preferred it to work like the shutter speed dial. It also looks a bit vulnerable in the pulled up position. Rear screen seems like the one on the SL, neutral colors, and very good contrast. The camera is certainly more responsive than the M240, especially in play back mode. Menu seemed a bit more complicated than usual for an M, but I didn't spend too much time there. I can't comment about IQ, but from the screen shots, I couldn't see any banding. So basically the viewfinder would be the main reason to upgrade in my opinion, and for a rangefinder camera, what could be more important?
I don't recall this being answered: does the ISO dial move in 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments in addition to full stops?
Edward, thanks for your first impressions. Interesting about the viewfinder. I've also read a couple contrary opinions stating little to any difference from the M240. Seems it will depend on each of us, how much of a difference it really makes.
I think the menu complication is a consequence of it now being all on one 'page' but you can set up a favorites menu for frequently accessed settings. Based on DPReview's DNGs, the M10 files are more pliable than the M240. Pushing an ISO 100 file 3.3 stops in Lightroom did reveal slight banding in the deep shadows, but overall it was much cleaner than the M240.
The ChromaSoft assessment is interesting. We'll see how it plays out with shipping cameras. For the most part I don't think much of what he raised will be of practical concern. For sure the DPReview sourced DNGs contained embedded Lightroom XMP edits/modifications. I am glad to hear the DNGs contain a full-rez Jpeg file, which I didn't even think to check, but have now confirmed is the case. This has been standard, at least with Canon cameras, since about 2010. It greatly speeds up my image assessment workflow and is another factor in favor of the M10. I use Photo Mechanic for first-stage culling, which can access the embedded Jpeg and allows very fast image viewing. It can also extract the embedded Jpeg and I've used this for immediate image delivery when processing raw files was not an option, yet I still wanted to shoot raw for future access to such adjustments. With the M9 & M240 I would either have to shoot DNG + Jpeg, which caused buffer performance problems, or I'd have to render full-rez previews afterwards, which would slow down the editing process. Maybe not a big deal when working with a few dozen images, but definitely a pain when in the hundreds or even thousands.
Jan 22, 2017 at 10:01 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
rscheffler wrote:
I don't recall this being answered: does the ISO dial move in 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments in addition to full stops?
Edward, thanks for your first impressions. Interesting about the viewfinder. I've also read a couple contrary opinions stating little to any difference from the M240. Seems it will depend on each of us, how much of a difference it really makes.
I think the menu complication is a consequence of it now being all on one 'page' but you can set up a favorites menu for frequently accessed settings. Based on DPReview's DNGs, the M10 files are more pliable than the M240. Pushing an ISO 100 file 3.3 stops in Lightroom did reveal slight banding in the deep shadows, but overall it was much cleaner than the M240.
The ChromaSoft assessment is interesting. We'll see how it plays out with shipping cameras. For the most part I don't think much of what he raised will be of practical concern. For sure the DPReview sourced DNGs contained embedded Lightroom XMP edits/modifications. I am glad to hear the DNGs contain a full-rez Jpeg file, which I didn't even think to check, but have now confirmed is the case. This has been standard, at least with Canon cameras, since about 2010. It greatly speeds up my image assessment workflow and is another factor in favor of the M10. I use Photo Mechanic for first-stage culling, which can access the embedded Jpeg and allows very fast image viewing. It can also extract the embedded Jpeg and I've used this for immediate image delivery when processing raw files was not an option, yet I still wanted to shoot raw for future access to such adjustments. With the M9 & M240 I would either have to shoot DNG + Jpeg, which caused buffer performance problems, or I'd have to render full-rez previews afterwards, which would slow down the editing process. Maybe not a big deal when working with a few dozen images, but definitely a pain when in the hundreds or even thousands....Show more →
Ron, I am pretty sure I read in one of the reviews (maybe Jono's but don't hold me to that) that the ISO dial only moves in full stop increments.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Ron, I am pretty sure I read in one of the reviews (maybe Jono's but don't hold me to that) that the ISO dial only moves in full stop increments.
That is correct, Steve.
Jan 22, 2017 at 10:34 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
With regard to the lack of video, i wonder if the smaller camera with the L mount might not be specialized for high level video. The SL sensor has very good video capability, but they didn't fully tap it with the SL, and such a small camera that offers just a few more high level video options that the SL does not and the Sony A7 series does not could be a real hit with the run and gun video crowd. I could even see a new set of summicron lenses (say a 20, 25, 35, & 60) that has an L mount, a de-clickable aperture ring, manual focus, and covers Super 35 format being a nice new market for Leica. The lens series would sort of fall in categories as a cross between Zeiss Loxia lenses and Ultra Prime lenses. This allows the SL to be the jack of all trades high end AF camera, the M to be the M, and the new smaller L mount camera to be the video specialist. I don't think that causes too much overlap, and I think it could work.
Ron, regarding the viewfinder, I read these accounts too, so I was expecting to find the same. And basically if you use any other lens than 28, the frames seem to be exactly the same size, but you might notice a wider space to the right and left outside of the frame. However with a 28 lens, there is a huge difference, no doubt. You can easily see the framelines with plenty of space left on the sides. As for the 0.68 vs 0.73 magnification, I can't say I noticed any difference.
Thanks for the clarification Edward. It seems there are two aspects to the viewfinder redesign that maybe are getting blended together. One is the wider view and/or better eye relief/eye point, which as you say with the 28mm frame lines is noticeably better. The change in magnification likely will be a minimal difference. Though I don't wear glasses, I do shoot 28mm a fair amount and this improvement will probably be appreciable. To extrapolate this further, I'm guessing the visible boundary of the viewfinder might be better at estimating 24mm and possibly 21mm lenses, than the M240 is currently. Of course, the EVF will provide best framing precision, but there are many times the speed of the OVF is preferable to me, even with UWA lenses.
rscheffler wrote:
I don't recall this being answered: does the ISO dial move in 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments in addition to full stops?
Steve Spencer wrote:
Ron, I am pretty sure I read in one of the reviews (maybe Jono's but don't hold me to that) that the ISO dial only moves in full stop increments.
edwardkaraa wrote:
That is correct, Steve.
OK, thanks. I read his review but must have missed it.
Just thinking about a future M feature I'd like to see - a fully electronic silent shutter option. Global shutter would be preferred to allow use with a variety of flickering artificial light sources, even if it meant some dynamic range penalty (which seems to currently be the case with global shutter options in high-end video/motion cameras such as the Canon C700). IMO it would align well with the positioning of the M as a small, discrete imaging tool.
Of course this would be a hardware change and likely not in this product cycle...
I think embed jpeg is a well come addition. I find S file preview is painful slow on my i7 5k iMac compare to D810.
M240 is ok though, somehow S file almost 3-4 times slower than M file, which is about the speed of D810 file. rscheffler wrote:
I don't recall this being answered: does the ISO dial move in 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments in addition to full stops?
Edward, thanks for your first impressions. Interesting about the viewfinder. I've also read a couple contrary opinions stating little to any difference from the M240. Seems it will depend on each of us, how much of a difference it really makes.
I think the menu complication is a consequence of it now being all on one 'page' but you can set up a favorites menu for frequently accessed settings. Based on DPReview's DNGs, the M10 files are more pliable than the M240. Pushing an ISO 100 file 3.3 stops in Lightroom did reveal slight banding in the deep shadows, but overall it was much cleaner than the M240.
The ChromaSoft assessment is interesting. We'll see how it plays out with shipping cameras. For the most part I don't think much of what he raised will be of practical concern. For sure the DPReview sourced DNGs contained embedded Lightroom XMP edits/modifications. I am glad to hear the DNGs contain a full-rez Jpeg file, which I didn't even think to check, but have now confirmed is the case. This has been standard, at least with Canon cameras, since about 2010. It greatly speeds up my image assessment workflow and is another factor in favor of the M10. I use Photo Mechanic for first-stage culling, which can access the embedded Jpeg and allows very fast image viewing. It can also extract the embedded Jpeg and I've used this for immediate image delivery when processing raw files was not an option, yet I still wanted to shoot raw for future access to such adjustments. With the M9 & M240 I would either have to shoot DNG + Jpeg, which caused buffer performance problems, or I'd have to render full-rez previews afterwards, which would slow down the editing process. Maybe not a big deal when working with a few dozen images, but definitely a pain when in the hundreds or even thousands....Show more →
Edward, thanks for the report. I think I will not expect major upgrade compare to M240 but improve pretty much everything that might be all I need. I don't feel short of M240 now but decide upgrade now as I feel regret I didn't buy M240 earlier to enjoy the benefit it give above M9.
If I will upgrade sooner or later I will do it earlier this time.
Black or silver?
rscheffler wrote:
Just thinking about a future M feature I'd like to see - a fully electronic silent shutter option. Global shutter would be preferred to allow use with a variety of flickering artificial light sources, even if it meant some dynamic range penalty (which seems to currently be the case with global shutter options in high-end video/motion cameras such as the Canon C700). IMO it would align well with the positioning of the M as a small, discrete imaging tool.
Of course this would be a hardware change and likely not in this product cycle...
Actually the electronic shutter option couldn't be included because Leica ran out of time for the release date and will be included in a future firmware, according to Stefan Daniel. However I guess he's talking about top speeds only, 1/8000 and 1/16000. I doubt slower speeds will be added.
zhangyue wrote:
I think embed jpeg is a well come addition. I find S file preview is painful slow on my i7 5k iMac compare to D810.
M240 is ok though, somehow S file almost 3-4 times slower than M file, which is about the speed of D810 file.
Edward, thanks for the report. I think I will not expect major upgrade compare to M240 but improve pretty much everything that might be all I need. I don't feel short of M240 now but decide upgrade now as I feel regret I didn't buy M240 earlier to enjoy the benefit it give above M9.
If I will upgrade sooner or later I will do it earlier this time.
Black or silver?...Show more →
Only the silver body was available today but I thought my black M262 looks nicer For actual use I think black is better, but silver is more flashy as a fashion accessory.
rscheffler wrote:
Thanks for the clarification Edward. It seems there are two aspects to the viewfinder redesign that maybe are getting blended together. One is the wider view and/or better eye relief/eye point, which as you say with the 28mm frame lines is noticeably better. The change in magnification likely will be a minimal difference. Though I don't wear glasses, I do shoot 28mm a fair amount and this improvement will probably be appreciable. To extrapolate this further, I'm guessing the visible boundary of the viewfinder might be better at estimating 24mm and possibly 21mm lenses, than the M240 is currently. Of course, the EVF will provide best framing precision, but there are many times the speed of the OVF is preferable to me, even with UWA lenses. ...Show more →
Hi,
Actually there are three aspects to the viewfinder redesign.
First, the magnification is slightly increased from .68 to .73. This is difficult to realize when just casually looking through the M10. I can see the difference when I look through the M10 and then back to my M240. Back and forth you can see the difference. Just like I can between my M240 and my M4. Which is why the M4 is a little easier to focus, for me and so is the M10, for me.
Second, the eye relief. This makes it easier to see the edges of the viewfinder and reduces fatigue. This effect is easily recognized.
Third, is the 30% increase in field of view. This is very easy to appreciate. The 35mm lines are very well centered inside of a noticeably larger overall field. The 28mm lines have more area outside of them too. Add to that the better eye relief (your eye can be further away from the objective).
I'm not sure, but I'll check and see if the 24mm FOV would now correspond to the entire viewfinder.
The thing is I have lots of silver classic Leica glass and all my other cameras are all blk blk.
So this time I will try a silver one especially black is chrome finish not painted version.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Only the silver body was available today but I thought my black M262 looks nicer For actual use I think black is better, but silver is more flashy as a fashion accessory.
It would be nice to be able to shoot 25mm biogin without EVF.
Eye relieve is more important than many people's thinking, it will make it a lot less fussier how you hold the camera for quick shooting and compose at difficult angle without tilt LCD. RickOptic wrote:
Hi,
Actually there are three aspects to the viewfinder redesign.
First, the magnification is slightly increased from .68 to .73. This is difficult to realize when just casually looking through the M10. I can see the difference when I look through the M10 and then back to my M240. Back and forth you can see the difference. Just like I can between my M240 and my M4. Which is why the M4 is a little easier to focus, for me and so is the M10, for me.
Second, the eye relief. This makes it easier to see the edges of the viewfinder and reduces fatigue. This effect is easily recognized.
Third, is the 30% increase in field of view. This is very easy to appreciate. The 35mm lines are very well centered inside of a noticeably larger overall field. The 28mm lines have more area outside of them too. Add to that the better eye relief (your eye can be further away from the objective).
I'm not sure, but I'll check and see if the 24mm FOV would now correspond to the entire viewfinder....Show more →
Yeah, I'd also like to see the currently set shutter speed in the OVF.
I like the look of the silver but I always get black. Never had experience with black chrome. Is it more durable? That said, my black M240 has held up OK. Maybe it's a sign I'm not shooting enough.
Interesting about adding electronic shutter via firmware. Glad you're keeping up with all the developments. It would be a shame if it only added a couple speeds at the top end. A full range of electronic shutter speeds would make me seriously reconsider getting an M10 sooner, even if it wasn't a global electronic shutter, which I doubt it would be. One pitfall might be 'bokeh degradation' as shown by the Sony electric shutter at higher speeds.
Rick, yes, you're right about it being three parameters. Already with the M240 the feeling was the viewfinder border corresponded to 24mm. It would seem the M10 makes this easier to see.
Michael, yes I think sooner will be better than later. Might as well enjoy the improvements, if the budget allows. Question is what performance parameters will be improved in the 'P' version.
rscheffler wrote:
Yeah, I'd also like to see the currently set shutter speed in the OVF.
I like the look of the silver but I always get black. Never had experience with black chrome. Is it more durable? That said, my black M240 has held up OK. Maybe it's a sign I'm not shooting enough.
Interesting about adding electronic shutter via firmware. Glad you're keeping up with all the developments. It would be a shame if it only added a couple speeds at the top end. A full range of electronic shutter speeds would make me seriously reconsider getting an M10 sooner, even if it wasn't a global electronic shutter, which I doubt it would be. One pitfall might be 'bokeh degradation' as shown by the Sony electric shutter at higher speeds.
Rick, yes, you're right about it being three parameters. Already with the M240 the feeling was the viewfinder border corresponded to 24mm. It would seem the M10 makes this easier to see.
Michael, yes I think sooner will be better than later. Might as well enjoy the improvements, if the budget allows. Question is what performance parameters will be improved in the 'P' version....Show more →
Hi Ron,
Yes the Black Chrome is much more durable than the paint. Can't say it is more durable than the Chrome Chrome. Leica discontinued the Black Chrome some years ago. I believe all of my R camera bodies were and are Black Chrome, something that Leica used to be proud to sell. I still have my R4SP, R7, and R8 in Black Chrome as was my sold R4S which Leica USA modified so that it was almost a true R4SP; I also believe my sold R3 MOT was also Black Chrome. Really pretty and durable stuff.
For actual use I think black is better, but silver is more flashy as a fashion accessory.