Actually I'd be delighted if it is then we don't have the hussle for long exposure and NR.
Erwin said it is a SL sensor with very minor tweak even though Leica claim it is brand new. I guess it might have minor tweak for exteam angle of ray for RF lens.
Either way, this one seems just a better tool for what is designed for every way.
Hope this can re thrive Leica M9 success. rscheffler wrote:
Also, could it be a Sony sensor?
Since my digital M now is either my X100t or my CL and scanner, I'm really interested.
Thinner, wanted it.
Better eye piece, great for my glasses.
Better ISO, check.
24MPs, good to go.
5FPS 36 shot RAW buffer- sounds like a roll of film.
Shutter sound, good.
Cheaper intro price, yes.
Desmolicious wrote:
Funny, Erwin's review left me nonplussed, Jono's makes me want one!
Guess it is also the quality of his photos.
I feel the same way about Jono's review.
A quote from him:
"On paper the M10 seems like an M(typ240) with the video removed, but in fact it is improved in almost every respect. Leica have listened to their users and addressed pretty much every criticism of previous digital M cameras."
This reminds me a lot of the M240's release. It garnered mixed reactions from many as not enough to justify an upgrade from the M9. In my use of both the M9 and M240, I felt the 240 was improved in almost every aspect over the M9, at least in respect to usability relative to my preferences. Sounds like the M10 is another 'step' in the same direction. Many small points/details have been improved that combined make a better user experience.
That said, Lloyd Chambers will still rip Leica for retaining the 'low' resolution sensor, lack of electronic first curtain shutter, ~2 year old EVF...
What's the point of uncompressed when you have lossless compressed? I never missed the lack of non-compressed with my Canon DSLRs, nor ever used it with the M240. I did use it with the M9 for personal work because the M9 used a form of lossy compression... but in testing found it made no noticeable difference in image quality, so always used lossy compression for weddings due to the sheer volume of images.
I was actually worried they would only offer uncompressed DNG without the option for lossless.
As for start up time... From DPR's quick look review:
"...startup time from power off is a laggardly one and a half seconds. This is better than previous M-series digital models, but prehistoric when compared to a modern DSLR. Speaking of which, a battery life rating of 200 or so shots isn't great."
Ugh. I was hoping this would go away, especially with the smaller battery. My typical event shooting strategy with the M9 and M240 has been to disable sleep to avoid the inevitable wake lag at inopportune times. With the M9 it meant I needed at least 5 batteries to last a full wedding... The M240 got by with 3. Looks like the M10 might be back to about 5, though with OVF only and ~500 shots with a battery you apparently really can shoot down to nearly zero (as per Jono's review) compared to the M9's which I would switch out at some point between 50-25%, maybe I could get by with four instead.
Also, red LED frame line illumination is no longer. But I never used it. Glad to see the frame line selector back.
edwardkaraa wrote:
You're getting exactly what you want in a couple of months. A mini SL, probably M shaped, with the latest EVF and video technology. You will still need the M adapter but that's a small inconvenience.
I love what Leica is doing. It is making everyone happy, except the price naggers.
I had an M2 and 21/35/50/90 lenses many years ago and loved the RF experience. Currently I have a couple of dozen M and LTM mount lenses (from 25mm to 105mm), but I've never been tempted to purchase a digital M body. I now strongly prefer using an EVF, I don't want to worry about having the rangefinder and lenses recalibrated, and I can't recall anyone speaking favourably about Leica's support and customer service in Australia.
Even so, like Arka I would be seriously interested in an M-shaped mini-SL with a close-focus M adapter. (I'd like the AF-capable "Barnack" camera Charlie described early in this thread even more but I think Steve Spencer was correct in pointing out that the lack of on-sensor PDAF makes this unlikely.)
Also posted this at LUF: I just had a look at DPReview's sample images and pulled the DNGs from some of the people photos. First impression is the M10 files feel extremely similar to the M240. Whatever (color) differences there are, are subtle. Artificial light situations can still result in overly orange 'pumpkin-like' skin tones. I'm liking skin tone results better when saturation for orange and yellow is pulled back a fair amount, which is the same thing I do with the M240... The low ISO files do push nicely and I don't see any signs of banding. I pushed one ISO 100 image 3.3 stops and I wouldn't guess this degree of push based on (lack of) image noise.
------
Looking at that 3.3 stop push more closely without NR, and there are hot pixels sprinkled around the image... and faint signs of banding streaks in the shadows. I guess no free lunch.
Just like the M9-M240 transition, if/when I upgrade, it won't be for image quality reasons since what I'm seeing from M10 files so far looks very similar when processed to taste. Granted, general lack of banding across the ISO range is significant. Rather, an upgrade will be to benefit from usability refinements.
Artificial lighting seems to be a challenge and DPR sure picked some 'funky' lighting for some of their sample shots. That being said I like what I see of the skin tones and general colours in Jonathan Slack's review, so there may be some improvement.
All considered, it's an interesting upgrade, but not sure if the changes are worth the $ to move from the M240.
I think the better viewfinder and external ISO knob alone are worth the upgrade. I bought my M262 just a few months ago and barely shot over 1500 shots with it, but the M10 is very attractive. I plan to delay the purchase as much as my willpower can bear but I know I will succumb to the temptation soon.
210 shots per charge?? How does a rangefinder have a fewer-shot battery than mirrorless cameras with high-resolution EVFs? How damn small is that battery??
We all look forward to seeing images from your soon to be acquired M10, Edward.
Feedback about the viewfinder experience would be greatly appreciated.
Lee, as explained in some of the early reviews, battery life depends greatly on how the camera is used. More EVF/live view and it will be less. Primarily OVF and it can reach around 500. The 210 images number is based on the CIPA standard which apparently uses some combination of all of the camera's shooting modes. Obviously if mixing in live view and EVF, a fair amount of image reviewing, etc., and battery life will diminish. FWIW, I've shot my Canon 1DX/1DXII in heavy live view use situations and have barely gotten more than a couple hundred images before having to switch battery. That said, I too feel M10 battery life is a step (or possibly a leap) backwards. It's too similar to the M9 and too distant from the M240.
Cal, IMO, mixed artificial lighting, or daylight mixed with artificial, has always been a digital M weakness. I think I actually got pretty decent results out of the DPR samples.
I'm also seeing a bit of IR contamination in some with the usual synthetic fabrics.
I also feel there isn't a lot of highlight recovery latitude. Maybe it's too early and lack of full software support? But as already said, shadow recovery, at least at lower ISOs, is very good.
Lee Saxon wrote:
210 shots per charge?? How does a rangefinder have a fewer-shot battery than mirrorless cameras with high-resolution EVFs? How damn small is that battery??
The batteries are pretty big, and expensive too. That said, I get much better than 210 shots per charge. I haven't counted exact numbers, but when I took the camera with me to Hong Kong, it lasted over two heavy shooting days (including a lot of long exposures) without draining even one battery.
He says it's the SL sensor, but with new NR algorithms to allow the ISO 6400. MM2 is still way ahead, moot for many, but if BW is your thing...
He says the dumping of uncompressed is so you can get 5fps. Ron, at your level of image production, I can see how you don't care about this, and of course the proof will be in the pudding, but Digilloyd certainly has made a very big deal about how much nice the uncompressed Sony RAWs are. The M10 files will be smaller than current M9 RAWs.
Working with A7 RAWs (compressed junk) M9 (just adequate) and RX1r2 (excellent) I know for somebody who is making fewer images to their own taste, it may matter.
Puts claims the loss of video is that the smaller form makes more heat, but one thinks of the A7r2. He also thinks a EVF feature packed version won't appear because it will compete internally. He goes on about how the business is not about making things, but managing sub contractors.
He concludes the M10 cannot make better images than M240 (except at higher ISOs) which essentially means it can't make better images than the M9, which is very good up to 400 ISO. What it can do is making shooting easier, with better ergonomics, and less "swiss army knife", compared to the 240. He says it's still too heavy. Shutter is very good, much better than 240, so it's light years ahead of the M9
"Willi" is after Will Stein who designed the M3.
It's very nice, and I can certainly see why many will get one. For a brief moment I thought: would I really prefer a r2 with newer mod? Maybe M10. No. M9 is perfectly fine for me, as it has proved in the last few days with some breath taking OOC RAWs that surprised me, yet again. A r2.mod2 as second back makes far more sense as it add so many options the M10 cannot.
I'm not even sure honestly, I would upgrade if I had an extra 6600 to burn, as the camera is actually heavier than M9. Plus my M9 is starting to get that sweet brassy weathering.... Having said that, I will probably shortly discover corrosion
edwardkaraa wrote:
I don't have insider info but subtle and not so subtle hints from people in the know
I would certainly buy that camera if it were made... it would be a nearly perfect camera for me and my current M-mount loadout. And if Leica also released a few lighter-weight SL series lenses, I would consider adding one... maybe a 28mm or 35mm f/2 with AF.
Charlie, you're confusing lossy and lossless raw compression. The Sony cameras and the M9 use forms of lossy raw compression. The M240 and M10 use lossless compression.
FWIW, all Canon DSLRs, many of which have been professional staples, have used lossless compression since seemingly forever and I don't recall reading any complaints about this from Lloyd or anyone else over the past 15 years.
I'm likely to believe Puts's statement about the sensor being the same as the SL... Likely Leica's marketing-speak is getting carried away about the sensor being entirely new (depending on how you interpret their statements).
Other than Puts, I haven't seen it confirmed anywhere what the true native base ISO is... 100 or 200? Puts states 200.
Also, can ISO be set only in full stops on the ISO dial, or also in incremental amounts? I guess if only full stops, then one would use the M setting and set in 1/3 stops in the menu? Puts has a rather vague single sentence about intermediate ISO settings being 'fake'. But it's unclear if he's referring to those at high ISO (underexposed and pushed in software) or across the full range.
rscheffler wrote:
Puts has a rather vague single sentence about intermediate ISO settings being 'fake'. But it's unclear if he's referring to those at high ISO (underexposed and pushed in software) or across the full range.
Ron - that must be fake news by a fake reporter.....
rscheffler wrote:
Charlie, you're confusing lossy and lossless raw compression. The Sony cameras and the M9 use forms of lossy raw compression. The M240 and M10 use lossless compression.
FWIW, all Canon DSLRs, many of which have been professional staples, have used lossless compression since seemingly forever and I don't recall reading any complaints about this from Lloyd or anyone else over the past 15 years.
I'm likely to believe Puts's statement about the sensor being the same as the SL... Likely Leica's marketing-speak is getting carried away about the sensor being entirely new (depending on how you interpret their statements).
Other than Puts, I haven't seen it confirmed anywhere what the true native base ISO is... 100 or 200? Puts states 200.
Also, can ISO be set only in full stops on the ISO dial, or also in incremental amounts? I guess if only full stops, then one would use the M setting and set in 1/3 stops in the menu? Puts has a rather vague single sentence about intermediate ISO settings being 'fake'. But it's unclear if he's referring to those at high ISO (underexposed and pushed in software) or across the full range....Show more →
To me there is an apparent contradiction between saying the sensor is the same as in the SL and that the base ISO is 200. There are different accounts about whether the base ISO for the SL is 100 or 50, but it certainly isn't 200. For what it is worth the measurements at DXO sure make it look like it is 50. My guess is that Leica went back to whoever manufactures the SL sensor and had them tweak it. They could call this a brand new sensor, but of course it is not. The SL sensor is quite good in dynamic range, and colour, and just a bit behind most contemporary sensors in noise. If this sensor keeps the dynamic range and colour and gets about a half stop in noise (as Jono Slack's review suggests), then it would put the sensor in line with the sensor in the A7II and the Canon 5D MKIV. That should be achievable, but Leica hasn't historically gotten sensors that are that competitive with the other manufacturers. It would be a good sign if this sensor does pan out to be that good. At a minimum your playing with the files, Ron, suggests we will be able to push the shadows, which should mean a huge increase in practical DR. High ISO seems quite good too. Colour isn't perfect but it never is on digital sensors and it seems pretty good on this camera.
edwardkaraa wrote:
You're getting exactly what you want in a couple of months. A mini SL, probably M shaped, with the latest EVF and video technology. You will still need the M adapter but that's a small inconvenience.
Is it for real? I pretty much decided to get the new M, but this will make me wait...
2 months? You sure it's not 2 years?
