PDA

View Full Version : Any M9 -> M10 upgraders out there?


mhoskin
08-31-2017, 15:34
Hi everyone,

I'm curious if there's anyone that decided to switch from the M9 and go to the M10, and what they thought of it? I'm generally happy with my M9 -- most of my best shots have come from it over the years. I decided to skip the 26x series because the images on the net seemed to lack what the M9 has -- plus the bodies are fat pigs. But now the film-size body and low-light capabilities of the M10 (an area where the M9 is definitely more film like in its constraints) seem attractive. And from what I can tell on the samples I see on the net, the M10 images are close to the M9 in their character.

So are there any M9 to M10 switchers out there? If so, what do you think? Worth it? Long for something the M9 has?

Thanks,

-Mark

nightfly
08-31-2017, 15:45
Would be curious about this as well. Happy with my M9 but down the road a used M10 would likely be my next camera. No interest in the 26x series for same reasons as above.

sepiareverb
08-31-2017, 15:50
I'm also thinking the M10 will be my next body, unless I go for the Hassy X1D...

raid
08-31-2017, 18:30
I will get an M10 one day. Until then, the M8 and M9 will be my main cameras.

FrozenInTime
09-01-2017, 00:46
I upgraded mainly to get better cold weather and high ISO performance.
It's only just arrived, after a six month wait, so don't yet have enough hands on time to contribute useful image comparison findings.
I did keep one M9, but it's away for sensor replacement.
Build, feel and general operation of the M10 really do highlight how clunky the M9 mechanics and electronics were.

airfrogusmc
09-01-2017, 06:58
I still have my M-E (or I should say Leica NJ has my M-E (ha ha). I also have an M 262 and an original MM (at Leica NJ also).

The M 10 is by far the most responsive digital M camera I have shot with. It is even more responsive than the M 262 and light years faster than my M-E and original MM. The low light capabilities are really good. 6400 ISO on the M 10 is cleaner than 1600 on the M 262. 20,000 ISO is very usable.

Here are a couple of samples at 20,000. These were just some test shots I took around the house the evening after it arrived.
both at 20,000
http://www.pbase.com/airfrogusmc/image/166092485.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/airfrogusmc/image/166092487.jpg

real life at 6400 ISO
Shot for a university client. Leica M 10. Leica 35mm 1.4 summilux FLE, Leica sf58 strobe set manually at 1/64th power, softened and gelled for light in room (tungsten) at about 2600 K.
6400 ISO
f/4
1/125

http://www.pbase.com/airfrogusmc/image/166121046.jpg

A few from the street at 6400 ISO
http://www.pbase.com/airfrogusmc/image/166041145.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/airfrogusmc/image/166098673.jpg

and a couple at 3200
http://www.pbase.com/airfrogusmc/image/166041149.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/airfrogusmc/image/166113070.jpg

I hope this helps. The Leica M 10 is the most responsive and the best Leica M digital in low light. It is quiet. It is immediate and the finest digital camera I have ever shot with and I have owned and shot with quite a few.

The down side is battery life but I always carry at least one spare with me always.

raid
09-01-2017, 08:08
Very impressive. Thanks for the posted images. If I don't need or want high ISO photography, are the other benefits in the M10 worth the expense to move away from the M9? I understand that the M10 is a better camera, but is the cost justified when you have an M9? I use ISO 160 most of the time, and rarely ISO 400.

airfrogusmc
09-01-2017, 08:41
Very impressive. Thanks for the posted images. If I don't need or want high ISO photography, are the other benefits in the M10 worth the expense to move away from the M9? I understand that the M10 is a better camera, but is the cost justified when you have an M9? I use ISO 160 most of the time, and rarely ISO 400.

Raid It is light years faster than the M9. There M 262 was faster but this is even faster than the M 262. There is virtually no lag time. When the ISO is really clean at high setting you might be surprised at what you didn't think that you needed. For fast street work it is great to be able to shoot at f/8 and f/11 with shutter speeds of 1/1000 of a second. I always love the color from my M-E but I would say the M 10 color just killer. The DR is also better.. I was planning on keeping both my M-E and my MM when they come back from Leica but I am now think of selling them both and sicking up another M 10 body. So I would have 2 M 10s and my M262 though I don't know if I could really live without the MM. We'll see how it plays out. I say, if you can, pick up an M 10 and keep the M9.

sepiareverb
09-01-2017, 08:44
I upgraded mainly to get better cold weather and high ISO performance...


This would be a big thing for me. The M9 can give disappointing battery life during the VT winter.

airfrogusmc - those look magnificent at high ISO. I suspect that results in the summer VT woods would be much better than the M9.

airfrogusmc
09-01-2017, 08:51
This would be a big thing for me. The M9 can give disappointing battery life during the VT winter.

airfrogusmc - those look magnificent at high ISO. I suspect that results in the summer VT woods would be much better than the M9.

Battery life is not as good as the M 262 but like I said I always carry extra's anyway. I have no idea how good or bad in really cold weather. I know I always burned through at least one when on the streets here in Chicago in January. The DR is really good with this new sensor. It is really sweet.

mhoskin
09-01-2017, 08:57
If I don't need or want high ISO photography, are the other benefits in the M10 worth the expense to move away from the M9? I understand that the M10 is a better camera, but is the cost justified when you have an M9? I use ISO 160 most of the time, and rarely ISO 400.

For me, I think that's the essence of it. Most of the time I'm at 160 ISO and wide aperture. Occasionally I'm at 400 ISO (still wide) but 1/30s -- these are the only times where I'd prefer cleaner high ISO performance. The appeal of the M10 for me is the body size (I think) and usable ISO 1600. That might be worth the $... but if it comes at the expense of the M9 images "je ne sais quoi", well, then no. Hence my interest in information from upgraders who specifically stuck with the M9 and skipped the 26x series for that reason.

-Mark

airfrogusmc
09-01-2017, 09:21
I am picky and I can tell you it is usable at 6400 so you can only imagine how good 1600 and lower are.

Heres a review that I agree with mostly.
http://www.jaycassario.com/blog/2017/2/4/leica-m10-first-impression-review

nickla
12-08-2017, 19:16
I didn’t upgrade, but I have both the M10 and M9. I would say they certainly compliment each other quite well.

That said, the 10 is light years better than the 9. The low light abilities are obviously a huge step up. Really stellar. I rarely even think about the ISO, it’s pretty great at any setting. Also, as mentioned before, it’s very fast in operation. No lag anywhere and huge buffer. Buffer jams drive me crazy on M9, even a film camera has larger buffer!!! While the screen on the M9 isn’t a dealbreaker, it’s definitely useable, the screen on m10 is glorious. Images look beautiful on it and u can really see what your photo looks like.
The simplified buttons and menus are also quite nice and again, lend to the speed of operation.

Im Not One to wax poetic about the difference in color between the two sensors, im pretty heavy into B&W and rarely shoot color. That said, I think the obsession about the color from the m9 sensor is a little much. I will admit that the color sooc on the M9 is gorgeous, but I usually edit the color on both cameras and they usually look pretty similar in the end.

All that said, I love the M9. It’s awesome. To me, it’s like using a film camera but it’s digital. The M10 is by leaps and bounds a better camera and worthy upgrade. It is certainly money well spent. But.... I wouldn’t upgrade unless you feel that the M9 is really hampering your Work. At the end of the day they’re both great cameras.

Huss
12-08-2017, 19:22
But now the film-size body and low-light capabilities of the M10 (an area where the M9 is definitely more film like in its constraints) seem attractive.

I never could shoot my M9(M-E) at iso 3200. Didn't go that far and was dodgy at 1600.
But I can with my M7 and Ilford 3200.
:D