Camera enthusiasts, what have we heard about the new Leica M10?

[subtona]

My first camera was an M6, the bond I developed with that perfect little machine has been etched indelibly in my notion of what a proper camera should be.


With the intro of the Leica M10, it finally appears that this will very much be a magnificently close experience to a traditional film Leica.


Currently using the Sony rx1 and a Leica Q, I'm close to pulling the trigger on the M10 and I'm curious what others have heard.

[bayerische]

I'm sure it will be great, but the price is high IMHO even for Leica.

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by subtona

My first camera was an M6, the bond I developed with that perfect little machine has been etched indelibly in my notion of what a proper camera should be.

I've owned (2) Leica 35mm rangefinders since the mid-1970s (an M2R & M4+(3) lenses/35-50-90 mm Summicrons/f2). I still have them and it's really hard to consider any other alternative RF once you've been there. Currently I am keeping an eye out for a well-preserved Nikon SP as well. There was a re-issue SP years ago but I believe it was only available in Japan.

One thing I never liked about the newer Leicas was the inclusion of that red logo on the front of the camera. It's kind of like advertising to the public that you've got one and I prefer the simpler script logo on top (just my personal preferences).

I demo'd the M8 when it first came out and was somewhat unimpressed at the time. It was heavy, had that tacky 'red' logo on front and the picture image could only be sighted through the viewfinder prior to clicking the shutter. At $8K it was also a tad overpriced. I also missed the 'reflecting window' that gave a classic look to all M series starting from the M3.

Digital photography has pretty much replaced film as the 'go-to' medium and that's somewhat unfortunate in terms of resolution and color saturation. A trained eye can usually tell the difference between digital and film. Of course the diminishing film offerings have a lot to do with this evolution as well. I've always loved the old Kodachrome transparency film (original, II and 25) for its color saturation and archival durability. Unfortunately those days are long gone. In the past, I would use a DR Summicron for B/W and the newer black model Summicron for color. Resolution and contrast were key factors in those days and I would imagine that in 'pixel world' it is no longer all that critical as there are countless ways to spiff-up an image.

Like 4-digit Rolex owners vs the more contemporary 5&6 digit owners, modern-day ownership parameters and personal priorities tend to change over time. Rolexes, BMWs, Martin guitars and Leicas were once kind of esoteric. Expensive at the time, yes. But today they are seemingly more representative as upwardly mobile status symbols.

[uscmatt99]

Originally Posted by subtona

My first camera was an M6, the bond I developed with that perfect little machine has been etched indelibly in my notion of what a proper camera should be.


With the intro of the Leica M10, it finally appears that this will very much be a magnificently close experience to a traditional film Leica.


Currently using the Sony rx1 and a Leica Q, I'm close to pulling the trigger on the M10 and I'm curious what others have heard.

I've had my eyes on one, once more widely available. My friend is an avid Leica guy and loves the changes from the Typ240. The body is slimmed down and almost identical to the M6 in thickness. The viewfinder has better relief to see 28mm framelines. The shutter is less offensive. The ISO dial on the right of the camera (where film Leicas have the rewind crank) is a mixed bag, but most people like its implementation. The buttons and menus have been cleaned up. The electronics are nearly as good internally as Sony/Nikon/Canon but are designed to be unobtrusive to the shooting experience. The in-camera JPEG engine color profiles are the best Leica has released so far. They even have Wi-fi incorporated, which I initially thought was gimmicky, but I use it all the time on my Sony cameras for my wife to share to social media.

I have a few Zeiss and Voigtlander rangefinder lenses that would love to ride along on an M10, just have to prepare my wallet. The photos won't be any better than what I get on my modified Sony A7 camera, but the shooting experience with a rangefinder and optical viewfinder would be much, much improved.

[douglasf13]

My last Leica was the M9, and it looks like Leica got a lot right in the M10, but I'm probably going to pass. For me, the money is just a bit too far outside what I'm comfortable with in a somewhat disposable camera. I shoot Fuji now, and I could take my camera and launch it into the ocean without much worry of the loss. I don't know, I do love shooting rangefinders, so we'll see.

[subtona]

Agree the price is high especially as digital is undeniably a rapidly replaced medium with the next big thing just around the corner... but I do so enjoy the rangefinder experience from Leica.


More info needed, appreciate all comments.

[77T]

It's hard to know who Leica built this new one for. Sure don't think sports or studio pro's are in the crosshairs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[subtona]

Originally Posted by 77T

It's hard to know who Leica built this new one for. Sure don't think sports or studio pro's are in the crosshairs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

photo journalist street photography has always been their forté

[descartes]

I've handled it. It's much thinner than the 240 and a bit lighter. I've read that the processor/buffer is faster but I didn't shoot it enough to tell.

I have a trip coming up to the factory in Wetzlar and I'm hoping they are selling of some 240 related items in the outlet store.

In the interest of full disclosure I don't currently own a digital Leica, just an M5, which I love. I am mainly interested in getting a digital one to shoot the 50 Summicron APO. I've spent a few days shooting that lens and it's pure magic.

[bayerische]

Originally Posted by 77T

It's hard to know who Leica built this new one for. Sure don't think sports or studio pro's are in the crosshairs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People like me.

Truth be told, it makes no sense today to buy a rangefinder, but with that said it is my favourite type of camera.

I've had several M6's, one M2, an Epson RD-1s (first digital rangefinder) the M8 when it came out, ditto M9 (and a couple after). Many lenses...

My photography interest isn't the same anymore, so right now I have a nice Leica R8 ( film SLR) with 28, 50 and 90mm lenses, I shoot B&W with it.

Digital side I mostly use my iPhone 7+, also have a Fuji X100. The Fuji is a great little camera, cheap too! And it is a "rangefinder", well it isn't as there is no rangefinder in it, but it works similar to a rangefinder meaning it has the rangefinder viewfinder although autofocus and measuring the distance/focus electronically.

When the M8 came out I think it was around 4200 euro or so. Back in 2006, it was pretty much groundbreaking stuff. Sure we have had a bit of inflation since then (but not much) I can't believe the M10 is going to be 6500... At that price you get the best of the best as far as 35mm digital cameras come. The technology inside the digital M's have been around for over 10 years now, and while they certainly have gotten better, they have also gotten different. I loved the M8 and M9 because of their CCD's, the switch to CMOS took away much of the "Leica feel".

[bayerische]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

I demo'd the M8 when it first came out and was somewhat unimpressed at the time. It was heavy, had that tacky 'red' logo on front and the picture image could only be sighted through the viewfinder prior to clicking the shutter. At $8K it was also a tad overpriced. I also missed the 'reflecting window' that gave a classic look to all M series starting from the M3.

The M8 had a street price of 4500 USD when launched.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by bayerische

People like me.

Truth be told, it makes no sense today to buy a rangefinder, but with that said it is my favourite type of camera.

I've had several M6's, one M2, an Epson RD-1s (first digital rangefinder) the M8 when it came out, ditto M9 (and a couple after). Many lenses...

My photography interest isn't the same anymore, so right now I have a nice Leica R8 ( film SLR) with 28, 50 and 90mm lenses, I shoot B&W with it.

Digital side I mostly use my iPhone 7+, also have a Fuji X100. The Fuji is a great little camera, cheap too! And it is a "rangefinder", well it isn't as there is no rangefinder in it, but it works similar to a rangefinder meaning it has the rangefinder viewfinder although autofocus and measuring the distance/focus electronically.

When the M8 came out I think it was around 4200 euro or so. Back in 2006, it was pretty much groundbreaking stuff. Sure we have had a bit of inflation since then (but not much) I can't believe the M10 is going to be 6500... At that price you get the best of the best as far as 35mm digital cameras come. The technology inside the digital M's have been around for over 10 years now, and while they certainly have gotten better, they have also gotten different. I loved the M8 and M9 because of their CCD's, the switch to CMOS took away much of the "Leica feel".

Great info

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by bayerische

The M8 had a street price of 4500 USD when launched.

In retrospect, was that for the M8 body only? Upon its initial release, there was a factory-sponsored/weekend demo program that they made available to current Leica owners. At the time, the camera shop quoted a ballpark $8K figure which also included a 50mm 'normal lens' (along with the sales tax).

After giving the M8 a try, I opted to stick with a conventional film format as its asking price was cost-prohibitive. Looking back, my M4 ran close to $450/new while the M2R was around $250/new. The all-black Wetzlar-made Summicrons 35-50-90 were about $250/$190/$300 respectively. I generally keep a 35 on one body and a 90 on the other.

Like Rolexes, Leica prices have skyrocketed over the years.

[bbhewee]

Originally Posted by bayerische

People like me.

Truth be told, it makes no sense today to buy a rangefinder, but with that said it is my favourite type of camera.

I've had several M6's, one M2, an Epson RD-1s (first digital rangefinder) the M8 when it came out, ditto M9 (and a couple after). Many lenses...

My photography interest isn't the same anymore, so right now I have a nice Leica R8 ( film SLR) with 28, 50 and 90mm lenses, I shoot B&W with it.

Digital side I mostly use my iPhone 7+, also have a Fuji X100. The Fuji is a great little camera, cheap too! And it is a "rangefinder", well it isn't as there is no rangefinder in it, but it works similar to a rangefinder meaning it has the rangefinder viewfinder although autofocus and measuring the distance/focus electronically.

When the M8 came out I think it was around 4200 euro or so. Back in 2006, it was pretty much groundbreaking stuff. Sure we have had a bit of inflation since then (but not much) I can't believe the M10 is going to be 6500... At that price you get the best of the best as far as 35mm digital cameras come. The technology inside the digital M's have been around for over 10 years now, and while they certainly have gotten better, they have also gotten different. I loved the M8 and M9 because of their CCD's, the switch to CMOS took away much of the "Leica feel".

Apologies for jumping in. But I am one of the lucky early owners of the M10, and have found the colours to be closer to what the M9 used to feel like, or at least the files require much less processing to get to a pleasant result.

[douglasf13]

Oh boy, we've introduced the CCD vs. CMOS discussion into the Rolex forum. My worlds are colliding!

[uscmatt99]

Originally Posted by 77T

It's hard to know who Leica built this new one for. Sure don't think sports or studio pro's are in the crosshairs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Leica is pretty much targeting small volume sales to people with a lot of disposable income. However, once you are already bought into the system, essentially the same system that's been around for decades, the cost per year is probably less dollar for dollar than Nikon, Canon, or Sony.

The M Typ 240 which preceded the M10 was released with an MSRP of just under $7000 (USD). It was released in April 2013, so roughly 4 years ago. Used models go for about $3500-4000 in good condition with less than 5000 actuations. So let's say about an $800 per year depreciation.

The Leica M9 which was released in 2009 for around $7000 still does well on the used market. They fetch around $2000, which is essentially unheard of for other brands. While Leica service is slow, they are to be commended in that when a sensor delamination issue was discovered, they offered free swaps to new sensors YEARS later. This has buoyed the used market.

The Nikon D4 was also released in 2013 with an MSRP of $6000, and now can be had for around $2000 with low actuations, or $1500 for a beater model. So that's about a $1000 per year depreciation.

The same year Sony released the RX-1, a fine camera priced at $2800, which now goes for around $1000-1200. While the annual depreciation is less in an absolute sense, the percent depreciation is greater than with the Leica.

Compared to other brands, Leica cameras depreciate less, but the buy-in is equal or higher initially. If you buy the lenses right, i.e. mint used, then you can sell them for essentially the same price if you take care of them, and no significantly upgraded model is available. So it's much cheaper to buy a lens, use it for 2-3 years, then sell it. Leica has been slow to upgrade much of their lens line-up because it's so damned good already, and the lenses are entirely manual with no fiddly electronics or motors.

I haven't owned a Leica product yet, but I plan to in the near future. Still trying to decide between the M-240, M-262, or just sucking it up and getting the M10.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by uscmatt99

Leica is pretty much targeting small volume sales to people with a lot of disposable income. However, once you are already bought into the system, essentially the same system that's been around for decades, the cost per year is probably less dollar for dollar than Nikon, Canon, or Sony.

The M Typ 240 which preceded the M10 was released with an MSRP of just under $7000 (USD). It was released in April 2013, so roughly 4 years ago. Used models go for about $3500-4000 in good condition with less than 5000 actuations. So let's say about an $800 per year depreciation.

The Leica M9 which was released in 2009 for around $7000 still does well on the used market. They fetch around $2000, which is essentially unheard of for other brands. While Leica service is slow, they are to be commended in that when a sensor delamination issue was discovered, they offered free swaps to new sensors YEARS later. This has buoyed the used market.

The Nikon D4 was also released in 2013 with an MSRP of $6000, and now can be had for around $2000 with low actuations, or $1500 for a beater model. So that's about a $1000 per year depreciation.

The same year Sony released the RX-1, a fine camera priced at $2800, which now goes for around $1000-1200. While the annual depreciation is less in an absolute sense, the percent depreciation is greater than with the Leica.

Compared to other brands, Leica cameras depreciate less, but the buy-in is equal or higher initially. If you buy the lenses right, i.e. mint used, then you can sell them for essentially the same price if you take care of them, and no significantly upgraded model is available. So it's much cheaper to buy a lens, use it for 2-3 years, then sell it. Leica has been slow to upgrade much of their lens line-up because it's so damned good already, and the lenses are entirely manual with no fiddly electronics or motors.

I haven't owned a Leica product yet, but I plan to in the near future. Still trying to decide between the M-240, M-262, or just sucking it up and getting the M10.

I've owned some of the cameras you mention, and it's a good point, but condition is part of the issue for me. I shoot Fuji now, because the camera is nicely sealed (live in Portland) and I can sling it around without worrying about keeping it looking nice and in good condition for later resale, which was more of a problem with my M9.

I guess i just don't make enough money to shoot an M10 and only see it as a tool without worrying about it getting destroyed. When you have a $7K camera with a $3K lens attached to it, and it's not something you're just using in a studio, sometimes worrying about it becomes an issue in the back of the mind (please I knocked the rangefinder out of whack when I had the M9.)

Incidentally, I refused to buy a Rolex until I felt that I could wear it in all conditions without worry, too. I'm not quite there with the Leica, but that M10 is tempting.

[uscmatt99]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I've owned some of the cameras you mention, and it's a good point, but condition is part of the issue for me. I shoot Fuji now, because the camera is nicely sealed (live in Portland) and I can sling it around without worrying about keeping it looking nice and in good condition for later resale, which was more of a problem with my M9.

I guess i just don't make enough money to shoot an M10 and only see it as a tool without worrying about it getting destroyed. When you have a $7K camera with a $3K lens attached to it, and it's not something you're just using in a studio, sometimes worrying about it becomes an issue in the back of the mind (please I knocked the rangefinder out of whack when I had the M9.)

Incidentally, I refused to buy a Rolex until I felt that I could wear it in all conditions without worry, too. I'm not quite there with the Leica, but that M10 is tempting.

Good points. I'd only shoot a Leica out of a bag. You can have 1000's of actuations and still get a fair amount when selling down the road, but heaven forbid you get a 5mm scratch on the LCD, or take the plastic off the baseplate. I've also heard that about the issue of the rangefinder getting out of alignment. It renders the camera no better than a crippled Sony if you have to use the Visoflex attachment. The repair turnaround is long, multiple months.

I would definitely keep my Sony kit in parallel with a Leica. I have an A7ii for my AF lenses, and an original A7 with a modified sensor to shoot with the rangefinder glass. I had the filter stack swapped so that the camera plays better with my rangefinder lenses. I have a bunch of SLR Nikon F-mount Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses too. The only downside is that I have to shoot RAW only on the A7 and use a Colorchecker Passport to fix the colors. But the A7 with a Zeiss ZM 35mm f/2.8 lens is such a discrete and fun package to shoot with while travelling, it's worth it.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by uscmatt99

Good points. I'd only shoot a Leica out of a bag. You can have 1000's of actuations and still get a fair amount when selling down the road, but heaven forbid you get a 5mm scratch on the LCD, or take the plastic off the baseplate. I've also heard that about the issue of the rangefinder getting out of alignment. It renders the camera no better than a crippled Sony if you have to use the Visoflex attachment. The repair turnaround is long, multiple months.

I would definitely keep my Sony kit in parallel with a Leica. I have an A7ii for my AF lenses, and an original A7 with a modified sensor to shoot with the rangefinder glass. I had the filter stack swapped so that the camera plays better with my rangefinder lenses. I have a bunch of SLR Nikon F-mount Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses too. The only downside is that I have to shoot RAW only on the A7 and use a Colorchecker Passport to fix the colors. But the A7 with a Zeiss ZM 35mm f/2.8 lens is such a discrete and fun package to shoot with while travelling, it's worth it.

Yeah, over the past dozen years, I've gone from everything from a Hasselblad + Leaf back to the A900 to the M9 to M glass on Sony to the RX1, etc., and shooting the Fujis really got me away from the old gear acquisition syndrome and camera forums. Heck, I used to shoot raw only for a decade, and now I shoot jpeg only and upload straight to my phone!

[bayerische]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

In retrospect, was that for the M8 body only? Upon its initial release, there was a factory-sponsored/weekend demo program that they made available to current Leica owners. At the time, the camera shop quoted a ballpark $8K figure which also included a 50mm 'normal lens' (along with the sales tax).

After giving the M8 a try, I opted to stick with a conventional film format as its asking price was cost-prohibitive. Looking back, my M4 ran close to $450/new while the M2R was around $250/new. The all-black Wetzlar-made Summicrons 35-50-90 were about $250/$190/$300 respectively. I generally keep a 35 on one body and a 90 on the other.

Like Rolexes, Leica prices have skyrocketed over the years.

They have. I thought of connecting the dots to Rolex earlier, but I didn't... But you are right. Highly inflated pricing. Leica has a strong following, and a lot of this following is like Rolex's following, people with deep pockets. Leica was close to bankruptcy not many years ago, and a strategy they did was to "change" the price to make their balance sheet better. As sales fell, the prices went up. A strange strategy that usually don't work, but it worked for Leica.

Now that you mention it, I remember there was a "kit" being sold in the US, but not in Europe.

I think the M-camera bodies whether digital on film should have been reasonably close in price. The M7 was around 3000e. If I could get a new digital M at 3000, I'd be all over it. 6500, not so much.

[bayerische]

Originally Posted by bbhewee

Apologies for jumping in. But I am one of the lucky early owners of the M10, and have found the colours to be closer to what the M9 used to feel like, or at least the files require much less processing to get to a pleasant result.

Good to hear, as I haven't really been following the M10.

[bayerische]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Oh boy, we've introduced the CCD vs. CMOS discussion into the Rolex forum. My worlds are colliding!

Yes, my bad, as I know "religion" to be a banned topic on TRF!

[subtona]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Oh boy, we've introduced the CCD vs. CMOS discussion into the Rolex forum. My worlds are colliding!

Is it possible to Break it down for me?

I honestly do not know the discussion.

I do know that my first digital M8 took amazing images while the Q is somewhat awful. Is this where the fault lies? They are both full frame.

Originally Posted by bayerische

Yes, my bad, as I know "religion" to be a banned topic on TRF!

[Wesley Crusher]

I used to be into photography. I had a single stroke M3 and an MP. I wanted the pure Leica experience and both cameras delivered.

I have been out for too long to comment on the M10.

[bayerische]

Originally Posted by subtona

Is it possible to Break it down for me?

I honestly do not know the discussion.

I do know that my first digital M8 took amazing images while the Q is somewhat awful. Is this where the fault lies? They are both full frame.

The M8 was a cropped sensor (not full frame), but CCD vs CMOS is the sensor technology. IMO CCD is far superior what comes to image quality, but CMOS is cheaper to make and draws much less energy. One of the CCD's problems where always image noise at high sensitivity levels (ISO).

[lig]

I'm an admirer of Leica - film and digital. The M10 and Q are really beautiful and really pleasurable to handle.

Having said that I am all in with Fuji. X-T2, X-Pro2, X100s and most of the lenses.

Suits me as I usually just go with one of the excellent JPEG film simulations instead of diving into the RAW files.

If Leica makes an M10 sized body with the excellent Q EVF and AF with the ability to change lenses - that might be the tipping point for me.

[bayerische]

Autofocus in a Rangefinder... Now there's an oxymoron.

[lig]

Originally Posted by bayerische

Autofocus in a Rangefinder... Now there's an oxymoron.

Totally fair. I really get along better with the EVF versus the OVF/hybrid view. I suppose if my primary interest was street/reportage than I'd learn to properly use a rangefinder.

I guess what I'd really like is an ILC Q.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by lig

I'm an admirer of Leica - film and digital. The M10 and Q are really beautiful and really pleasurable to handle.

Having said that I am all in with Fuji. X-T2, X-Pro2, X100s and most of the lenses.

Suits me as I usually just go with one of the excellent JPEG film simulations instead of diving into the RAW files.

If Leica makes an M10 sized body with the excellent Q EVF and AF with the ability to change lenses - that might be the tipping point for me.

I'm the opposite. The rangefinder is the only reason I'd get back into Leica. Honestly, unless you print at gigantic sizes, IQ is barely a reason to choose a camera these days, maybe even down to m4/3.

As far as CCD vs. CMOS, I've been involved in so many threads testing that over the past dozen years that, all I can say is that I'm not sure I'd pick a camera based on it anymore (unless maybe we're talking CCD vs. early CMOS.)

[subtona]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I'm the opposite. The rangefinder is the only reason I'd get back into Leica. Honestly, unless you print at gigantic sizes, IQ is barely a reason to choose a camera these days, maybe even down to m4/3.

As far as CCD vs. CMOS, I've been involved in so many threads testing that over the past dozen years that, all I can say is that I'm not sure I'd pick a camera based on it anymore (unless maybe we're talking CCD vs. early CMOS.)

The full frame is essential for me for the relationship to the lenses and usefulness of the printed scales. I found when I shot the film versions it was very useful to focus by using the scales while shooting street pics.

If alternate sensor sizes would relate the lenses accurately it would be a different conversation.

I've shot the Fuji x100 and found it to be a great user friendly camera but I was missing that little bit significant bit of magic.