The M10 will NEVER look as cool as a well used black paint M9. It's the only digital camera I know which gets seriously gorgeous with age....
Sorry for you Joakim... DSC09786 by unoh7, Badge of Honor
That look took 3 years of constant use. Still shoots great too. I'm not stopping now. Even with the sewing machine shutter.
And since the M10 won't wear pretty, I guess the real question is: why use brass at all? If I can't get the "look", I'd just as soon have a light strong material and carry less
Omission of black paint....wow....that's worse than lack of video Way worse....as it's a historical cult aspect central to the entire Leica mythos.
What are they thinking......
Oh I get it, less future resistance to upgrade
Here it was a month after I got it: DSC08424 by unoh7, Green M
That look took 3 years of constant use. Still shoots great too. I'm not stopping now. Even with the sewing machine shutter.
And since the M10 won't wear pretty, I guess the real question is: why use brass at all? If I can't get the "look", I'd just as soon have a light strong material and carry less
Omission of black paint....wow....that's worse than lack of video Way worse....as it's a historical cult aspect central to the entire Leica mythos.
uhoh7 wrote:
Aren't you the guy who thinks the M240 is bloated compared to M9?
i'm the guy who thinks the m240 continued further down the path of bloat that m9 had already gone too far on for my taste. what does that have to do with my opinion on the aesthetics of black paint on brass?
sebboh wrote:
i'm the guy who thinks the m240 continued further down the path of bloat that m9 had already gone too far on....
But it didn't. The 262 (M240 frame) is near identical weight and effectively thinner, or did you miss that? Which since the battery is so much bigger, is actually less bloat. The 240 had extra 60 grams for video and the battery.
That look took 3 years of constant use. Still shoots great too. I'm not stopping now. Even with the sewing machine shutter.
And since the M10 won't wear pretty, I guess the real question is: why use brass at all? If I can't get the "look", I'd just as soon have a light strong material and carry less
Omission of black paint....wow....that's worse than lack of video Way worse....as it's a historical cult aspect central to the entire Leica mythos.
M240 black have the same brass look.
I actually don't really care if it is brass or black chrome. Either give different kind of look once getting old.
I am just wanting try something new for a change this time. I still think M9P chrome is the prettiest digital Leica ever soon to be replaced by m10p I guess.
Brassing cameras are associated with heavy professional use. I do find it quite pervert that Leica would make an easy brassing paint that will wear off with light use. Again not calling you pervert Charlie
But anyway since there is a market for that kind of thing, why not? The prewashed preshrunk Kravitz edition is a good example!
I like the looks of the M10, and it seems like the perfect course correction for the M-line. Continuing the EVF with a serious upgrade was a nice touch for those who have grown accustom to adapting lenses or using the EVF for ultra-wides.
uhoh7 wrote:
But it didn't. The 262 (M240 frame) is near identical weight and effectively thinner, or did you miss that? Which since the battery is so much bigger, is actually less bloat. The 240 had extra 60 grams for video and the battery.
you and i have different opinions about what effectively thinner is i guess. that picture you keep showing tells me nothing about the thickness question that matters to me. find some measurements of the top plates that people at luf agree with and i'll agree with whatever they are (you yourself disagreed with the last ones you gave me).
did you ever compare the rx1's compressed raw to uncompressed?
sebboh wrote:
you and i have different opinions about what effectively thinner is i guess. that picture you keep showing tells me nothing about the thickness question that matters to me. find some measurements of the top plates that people at luf agree with and i'll agree with whatever they are (you yourself disagreed with the last ones you gave me).
did you ever compare the rx1's compressed raw to uncompressed?
on my to do list, do they claim the compressed are lossless?
You are so stubborn. To still claim the M240 is "bloated" M9 in the face of such obvious evidence to contrary. No reasonable observer would agree.
On M10: well the naked sensor could possibly still be same as SL, but the CFA is new and that is a big difference, which I think does support the contention that we are seeing more than an SL sensor with better NR algorithms and new OOC image profiles. The dyes are different.
That comes from Sandy at Chromosoft in analysis of the RAWs where the color matrix is shown very different from SL. I asked Sandy if just a new IR cut might cause this:
"The primary driver of the matrix is the characteristics of the dyes used in the Bayer array. In addition, the effects of IR filters, the actual sensitivity of the "naked" sensor, etc all come into it. Why there is a matrix is because the spectral response of the dyes overlap. In simple terms, a bit of "red" light gets into the "green" pixel, a bit of green light gets into the red pixel, etc. The matrix subtracts that out. If you look at a matrix, the terms on the diagonal are usually positive, while the other terms are smaller and negative. The smaller negative terms are subtracting out the overlaps in spectral sensitivity. As such, there is no "perfect" matrix, just the best compromise you can find."
I'm pressing him for more clues about Leica's sensor choice for M10. I think it does qualify as "New" compared to all previous models.
uhoh7 wrote:
on my to do list, do they claim the compressed are lossless?
oh it's totally lossy, same as all the a7 series. files are still bigly better than the a7 or m9 though. i can't see any difference between the compressed and non compressed 99% of the time and when i do see it, it takes a lot of work to see it.
uhoh7 wrote:
You are so stubborn. To still claim the M240 is "bloated" M9 in the face of such obvious evidence to contrary. No reasonable observer would agree.
reasonably observers are hard to find. i am stubborn, but you should meet my wife and kids if you want to experience real stubbornness.
You cheeky bugger Ron! I actually stopped wearing it around my neck when working on my patients. It kept bumping my hand when I was doing some important drilling (not good). Being a rich dentist, I really shouldn't bother with trying to impress people with my Leica but I just can't stop...
I was just chuckling to myself that the best thing about the M10 (to me) is that it might make finding a decently priced used M240 even easier. Now, it seems like a no brainer to me that the M system is a fantastic street camera where the rangefinder benefits are manifold. I absolutely get the perspective that in decent light, zone focusing with smallish apertures can yield great results and a shooting experience folks feel is overall superior to any other type of camera. We've all seen some of the greatest street photography ever come out of this arrangement.
Many of the types of photography the M was not designed to do are totally obvious, but one thing is still a bit unclear to me.
Fast glass for shallow depth of field images with the subject off the center focus window: I've gotten very used to being able to shoot portraits, and various scenes with fast lenses in all kinds of light through an EVF, moving the focus point away from the center. For shallow depth of field/low light images, I don't have to recompose and risk blowing the zone of focus, I just make my composition what I want it to be, and move my focus box to where I want it. Portraits I've been taking this way with fast Leica and Zeiss glass have been so lovely, and a breeze. Shots with missed focus? Hardly any.
Now with the rangefinder focus window only in the center, am I correct in assuming that shooting at 1.4 at closer distances, getting accurate focus off center is a bit more of a dicey proposition? And if this is the case, it would seem to me that for closer subjects, fast M glass (perhaps excluding wides like the 24 summi) is for experts only who have some seriously awesome technique to shoot off center. Is that accurate?
I'm not at all the kind of person that thinks a Leica M should be able to behave like a DSLR or a mirrorless camera simply because it costs a lot of money, but I want to weed through the fan boyism where people front and stick up for the shortcomings of rangefinder focusing as if they are personally responsible for the design. I'd rather be real about it so I can make an informed decision.
In looking around for some good feedback on this issue in the wilds of the interwebs, I've seen a decent amount of terrible information that has centered around people using their tools outside of their design parameters, followed by an avalanche of complaints about bad results. Or unabashed gushing/hyper criticism on websites that could be called "showcasing mediocre photography through the world's finest optics.com."
Thank you Leica veterans in advance.
Jan 23, 2017 at 02:37 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Jack Thompson wrote:
I was just chuckling to myself that the best thing about the M10 (to me) is that it might make finding a decently priced used M240 even easier. Now, it seems like a no brainer to me that the M system is a fantastic street camera where the rangefinder benefits are manifold. I absolutely get the perspective that in decent light, zone focusing with smallish apertures can yield great results and a shooting experience folks feel is overall superior to any other type of camera. We've all seen some of the greatest street photography ever come out of this arrangement.
Many of the types of photography the M was not designed to do are totally obvious, but one thing is still a bit unclear to me.
Fast glass for shallow depth of field images with the subject off the center focus window: I've gotten very used to being able to shoot portraits, and various scenes with fast lenses in all kinds of light through an EVF, moving the focus point away from the center. For shallow depth of field/low light images, I don't have to recompose and risk blowing the zone of focus, I just make my composition what I want it to be, and move my focus box to where I want it. Portraits I've been taking this way with fast Leica and Zeiss glass have been so lovely, and a breeze. Shots with missed focus? Hardly any.
Now with the rangefinder focus window only in the center, am I correct in assuming that shooting at 1.4 at closer distances, getting accurate focus off center is a bit more of a dicey proposition? And if this is the case, it would seem to me that for closer subjects, fast M glass (perhaps excluding wides like the 24 summi) is for experts only who have some seriously awesome technique to shoot off center. Is that accurate?
I'm not at all the kind of person that thinks a Leica M should be able to behave like a DSLR or a mirrorless camera simply because it costs a lot of money, but I want to weed through the fan boyism where people front and stick up for the shortcomings of rangefinder focusing as if they are personally responsible for the design. I'd rather be real about it so I can make an informed decision.
In looking around for some good feedback on this issue in the wilds of the interwebs, I've seen a decent amount of terrible information that has centered around people using their tools outside of their design parameters, followed by an avalanche of complaints about bad results. Or unabashed gushing/hyper criticism on websites that could be called "showcasing mediocre photography through the world's finest optics.com."
If you get the M10 and the external EVF 020 you put in the hotshot, then you could still shoot portraits with fast glass exactly as you are now, and that is one big advantage of the M10 over the 240. The M10 can move the center focus point when using the EVF (and you get spot metering there too), and the EVF is miles better. The 240 in addition to having a crappy EVF, you can't move the focus magnification off the center, so it is not really useful for the type of shooting you are describing.
Jack Thompson wrote:
I was just chuckling to myself that the best thing about the M10 (to me) is that it might make finding a decently priced used M240 even easier. Now, it seems like a no brainer to me that the M system is a fantastic street camera where the rangefinder benefits are manifold. I absolutely get the perspective that in decent light, zone focusing with smallish apertures can yield great results and a shooting experience folks feel is overall superior to any other type of camera. We've all seen some of the greatest street photography ever come out of this arrangement.
Many of the types of photography the M was not designed to do are totally obvious, but one thing is still a bit unclear to me.
Fast glass for shallow depth of field images with the subject off the center focus window: I've gotten very used to being able to shoot portraits, and various scenes with fast lenses in all kinds of light through an EVF, moving the focus point away from the center. For shallow depth of field/low light images, I don't have to recompose and risk blowing the zone of focus, I just make my composition what I want it to be, and move my focus box to where I want it. Portraits I've been taking this way with fast Leica and Zeiss glass have been so lovely, and a breeze. Shots with missed focus? Hardly any.
Now with the rangefinder focus window only in the center, am I correct in assuming that shooting at 1.4 at closer distances, getting accurate focus off center is a bit more of a dicey proposition? And if this is the case, it would seem to me that for closer subjects, fast M glass (perhaps excluding wides like the 24 summi) is for experts only who have some seriously awesome technique to shoot off center. Is that accurate?
I'm not at all the kind of person that thinks a Leica M should be able to behave like a DSLR or a mirrorless camera simply because it costs a lot of money, but I want to weed through the fan boyism where people front and stick up for the shortcomings of rangefinder focusing as if they are personally responsible for the design. I'd rather be real about it so I can make an informed decision.
In looking around for some good feedback on this issue in the wilds of the interwebs, I've seen a decent amount of terrible information that has centered around people using their tools outside of their design parameters, followed by an avalanche of complaints about bad results. Or unabashed gushing/hyper criticism on websites that could be called "showcasing mediocre photography through the world's finest optics.com."
focus then recompose works great at f/1.4 for 50mm and shorter lenses with modern rangefinder lenses. longer than 50mm and things get dicey imo, but then neither leica nor zeiss make f/1.4 lenses longer than 50mm anymore.
Way worse....as it's a historical cult aspect central to the entire Leica mythos. 
I actually stopped wearing it around my neck when working on my patients. It kept bumping my hand when I was doing some important drilling (not good). Being a rich dentist, I really shouldn't bother with trying to impress people with my Leica but I just can't stop...