Makes sense Charlie. The lens code is correcting color shift and vignetting. It also explains why I seem to have to back of the vignetting adjustment in Lightroom when I apply a profile to a coded lens.
So, apparently Sean Reid analysis has convinced jaapv, strong Leica defender, to keep his M240.
jaapv, will not say why, but says: you must subscribe, to learn the reason. I find this ridiculous. We quote sources all the time in every field to support views on one issue or the other.
I don't think talking about what Sean thinks will hurt him one bit, more likely to encourage subscription. Perhaps membership includes NDA.
What is the difference if I quote an author from a book I own to back up a contention? Sharing everything is over the top, but sharing how certain information has changed your view seems normal to me.
I don't know how Jaap was thinking and prioritizing when he decided not to upgrade but as far as Sean Reid goes he is very positive about the M10 in his review and mentions the new viewfinder, ergonomics and the high ISO quality as some of the main improvements of the camera.
On a personal note I am also not sure if it's worth upgrading, not because of the M10 itself but rather because of the M-246 that I own and enjoy a lot.
joakim wrote:
I don't know how Jaap was thinking and prioritizing when he decided not to upgrade but as far as Sean Reid goes he is very positive about the M10 in his review and mentions the new viewfinder, ergonomics and the high ISO quality as some of the main improvements of the camera.
On a personal note I am also not sure if it's worth upgrading, not because of the M10 itself but rather because of the M-246 that I own and enjoy a lot.
TY Joakim, it's a mystery to me also.
Also, if I was really to pull the trigger, I would subscribe to Sean, for sure. $40 is very reasonable, and I have alot of respect for him. I don't blame him at all for running a pay site. I just think referring to his findings in general or on single points is something journalist and authors do all the time in other contexts. It's good for his exposure. Reprinting a full article I don't think would be fair. Quoting a paragraph. I don't get the issue. But as always, if I have that wrong, anyone chime in.
According to Puts your 246 is alot better high ISO than M10.
Jan 26, 2017 at 07:33 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
uhoh7 wrote:
TY Joakim, it's a mystery to me also.
Also, if I was really to pull the trigger, I would subscribe to Sean, for sure. $40 is very reasonable, and I have alot of respect for him. I don't blame him at all for running a pay site. I just think referring to his findings in general or on single points is something journalist and authors do all the time in other contexts. It's good for his exposure. Reprinting a full article I don't think would be fair. Quoting a paragraph. I don't get the issue. But as always, if I have that wrong, anyone chime in.
According to Puts your 246 is alot better high ISO than M10. ...Show more →
With copyright there is what is called a fair use exception which let's you use at lest 10% of an article or book and it is considered fair without having to compensate the author/copyright holder. There are fights about this all the time, however. I think it is well established that you can use some without having to pay and summarizing is probably fine too. Other can and probably will disagree and the is why their are court fights about this stuff, but no use at all I don't think is consistent with the laws on copyright. Of course no one has to share and that is their right too.
Steve Spencer wrote:
With copyright there is what is called a fair use exception which let's you use at lest 10% of an article or book and it is considered fair without having to compensate the author/copyright holder. There are fights about this all the time, however. I think it is well established that you can use some without having to pay and summarizing is probably fine too. Other can and probably will disagree and the is why their are court fights about this stuff, but no use at all I don't think is consistent with the laws on copyright. Of course no one has to share and that is their right too....Show more →
Of course, but why would one not explain their reasoning? The funny thing is most subscribers think Sean is pro-M10, but jaapv by not explaining would have many get the idea Sean has problems with the camera. Jaapv is kind of a Leica authority, and he does know lots of details about M, for sure, so it's all very "As the World Turns"
Quick test here looks like to me that the M10 has a 1.5ish advantage over the Q. The Q was better than the M24x series. That makes me really interested in a Monochrome version of the M10.
I don't know why anyone would compare a last generation monochrome to this generations full color. I guess if those are the only cameras you had, OK. At least convert the M10s to monochrome like people did when comparing the 246 and 240.
Not sure when you read the Leicarumors comparison but he updated it. He initially didn't realize Lightroom automatically sets luminance NR for M10 files. He now states that without NR, M10 files are "just slightly better than the Q."
rscheffler wrote:
Not sure when you read the Leicarumors comparison but he updated it. He initially didn't realize Lightroom automatically sets luminance NR for M10 files. He now states that without NR, M10 files are "just slightly better than the Q."
Yesterday sometime IIRC. It did seem like a rather big jump, approaching 2stops. My first thoughts were about how the settings used.
uhoh7 wrote:
So, apparently Sean Reid analysis has convinced jaapv, strong Leica defender, to keep his M240.
jaapv, will not say why, but says: you must subscribe, to learn the reason.
I (re) subscribed to Sean to read the M10 analysis and there's nothing in there that I can see that would convince someone *not* to upgrade unless they were simply satisfied with what they already had and didn't want the obvious, slight advantages of the M10 such as slightly thinner form factor, larger viewfinder and better high ISO.
I certainly wouldn't read too much into it. Jaapv will own an M10 sooner than later.
I used an M10 at the Leica Gallerie in West Hollywood last night. I should have put my own SD card in it.
My 15 minutes with the camera yielded these opinions:
1. It's dense, weighty
2. Though thinner by specifications, I didn't notice it that much when handholding the camera
3. The shutter fires very quickly and rather quietly
4. The ISO dial is, to be blunt, fussy and difficult to use. Mere artifice for pre-M4 style bodies
5. Leica should dispense with the tread-worn affectation of removable bottom plates. It's senseless by now
6. The screen is crisp, sharp and bright
7. The overall speed, integration, fit and finish of the body, both mechanically and technologically, doesn't seem to leave anything on the table in terms of competing cameras.
8. The viewfinder is bigger, clearer, brighter, easier to focus. Incremental - but welcome
I'm impressed with the camera! Leica has done a great job.
The Q weighs next to nothing and is very responsive. A really nifty little camera. Interesting macro mode.
The SL is fast and accurate. It's overweight I think, and the concept of a hewn metallic block sounds nice but the grip and bulk could use some work. The lenses are farcically large. I'd like some of the controls to be a tad larger or have more grip/friction for the hands.
I have never seen such a bright, easy-to-use electronic viewfinder before. I could well and truly see it almost supplanting an optical finder for that kind of camera. It shames the A7/R.
rscheffler wrote:
Not sure when you read the Leicarumors comparison but he updated it. He initially didn't realize Lightroom automatically sets luminance NR for M10 files. He now states that without NR, M10 files are "just slightly better than the Q."
Looks like the M10 has about a stop difference then- 25k looks like the Q 12.5K. At 50K the difference seems less.
Quick test here looks like to me that the M10 has a 1.5ish advantage over the Q. The Q was better than the M24x series. That makes me really interested in a Monochrome version of the M10.
I don't know why anyone would compare a last generation monochrome to this generations full color. I guess if those are the only cameras you had, OK. At least convert the M10s to monochrome like people did when comparing the 246 and 240.
You need to understand monochrome is totally different for ISO performance. M246 is way beyond M10. The other M240 variants are well behind. You can easily research why that is the case. The MM is as good at ISO 2000 as M9 at 800. It's the same basic sensor.
uhoh7 wrote:
You need to understand monochrome is totally different for ISO performance. M246 is way beyond M10. The other M240 variants are well behind. You can easily research why that is the case. The MM is as good at ISO 2000 as M9 at 800. It's the same basic sensor.
Duh. That is why I wonder why anyone would waste time putting a color pic up against a monochrome pic. At least convert the M10's picture to monochrome. Might be interesting to see how the M10 run as a monochrome camera compares to the 246. Probably not as good, but considering how close the 240 and 246 are in the comparo you linked to, it might give it a run for its money.
Puts seems to dismiss the camera, when the analysis could have easily been that the camera replaces all past Ms in performance, has a better viewfinder and a slimmer form factor while debuting at $500(US) lower price than past cameras. Instead he kind of just shrugs his shoulders.
At least we dont' have to play the MP game when comparing cameras like we did with the m9-M24x evolution.
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 for my taste.
uhoh7 wrote:
Derek I just realized A7 is 474 with battery and A7rii is 625 grams, both without M adapter. There is the bloat benchmark for mirrorless FF.
I'm going to have a heart attack once I finally do a R2 mod.
i'm with you there. i'll cut them a little slack since they added IBIS (which i had been begging for), but you'll note i still shot the a7 too. i really want a NEX-7 sized camera.
