35photo
Well-known
Not being “Hostile” Just being real …♂️
lukitas
second hand noob
One of the things I find irksome and distracting : having to nudge the little square around on the screen. Discovering it is in quite the wrong place for the next shot.
face detection, eye detection, car detection, pack shot detection : very useful and easy. But I don't want 'smart' stuff. I don't want to stand by and watch my camera take decisions in my stead.
I'm not knocking it. Automation and machinery are very seductive. But doing things oneself is much more satisfying.
Cyriljay
Leica Like
Any M from M8 are good. Depending on what photography you do they are different tools. I used my M analogue bodies for few decades and I had given up M9 and the next update camera. I am keeping my M8.2 and it is still a great camera and knowing it is going to die one day I'll give my full confidentiality to use that to the last date. I like the M10 but the colours are not to my taste.
35photo
Well-known
Lots of factors go into color rendering… lens, color used, how the image was processed..
I agree. It is why those of us used to a rangefinder patch use the single point, center focus and recompose method.
boojum
Mentor
I agree. Tools will not make the artist. I have Leicas and they did not make me a better photographer. They are fun, sorta, and they win most pissing contests, except with Alpa owners. For taking photos I prefer the Sony A7M III. It allows me more space/time to shoot. The lenses I have, the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 and the Sony 24 - 240 are great lenses, always in focus and always correctly exposed. Always. When I want to fart around and play photographer I crank up a Leica, usually the M9 or M8.2 which I really love for the image quality. When I read about "lousy ISO's" I am listening to someone who did not shoot ASA 64 Kodachrome, Plus-X ASA 100 or Tri-X ASA 200. Tri-X used to be warp speed and with an f/3.5 lens and I got it done at night.
It is hard to say if the Leicas or the others get me out more. The little Pentax Q-S1 is a charmer and a giant killer with great color and definition. And it will fit in a shirt pocket, without a lens. It is a good camera. So for me the impetus is just do I want to get out into the car and cruise around seeing what might be interesting. Overgaard is right, "Always wear a camera." I cannot take a picture without one. His other dictum, "Believe in yourself" is major. If I do not believe in myself I will be mired in tech specs and manuals and that does not get pictures taken. Eddy Merckx, the insanely successful bike racer, was asked how to be a great raced like him. Eddy's answer? "Ride your bike a lot."
Cyriljay
Leica Like
[QUOTE} When I want to fart around and play photographer I crank up a Leica, usually the M9 or M8.2 which I really love for the image quality. When I read about "lousy ISO's" I am listening to someone who did not shoot ASA 64 Kodachrome, Plus-X ASA 100 or Tri-X ASA 200. Tri-X used to be warp speed and with an f/3.5 lens and I got it done at night. ""
I think I am using my Leica camera with Leica lenses. I am not a PHOTOSHOP PHOTOGRAPHER so I clearly understand the WHAT IS LEICA CHROME IS LIKE. M9/and m8 senses are antique and so special just like Kodak chrome. I like Fuji lens and I had a Blad 203Fe with a Fujinon and Xpan with a Fujinon Len . The quality of the colour is great.
And I used to shoot my photo on analogue camera loaded with one film which has only one ASA 200-400 . I always shot for stars aiming for the moon . I was always a winner.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I'm with you, lukitas. I've gladly paid more for several cameras that had less stuff ... I get better photographs that way, that look the way I want my photographs to look. I don't mind using AF, when it works, but it's certainly not an essential; it only works as well as my ability to focus now and then, and it's almost never as fast.
G
G
boojum
Mentor
I am very happy for you.
boojum
Mentor
I know you believe what you say. OTOH the folks who pay the mortgage with their cameras use the latest and greatest autofocus, autoexposure, auto ISO. They do not have the luxury of dawdling with their camera to express themselves. They need the picture. You cannot focus faster than autofocus, you cannot set exposure faster than autpoexposure, because you cannot think faster than a computer. This is fact. If you really believed you could you would be full manual, wouldn't you?
So it comes down to personal choice and just how much "control" you wish to exercise over your photos. Factor in your hit rate. How many are in focus? If you do not use autoexposure, how many are correctly exposed? Current Japanese autofocus is amazingly fast and amazingly accurate. Check out the wildlife telephotos here (https://www.alphashooters.com/community/) and tell me if you can do that manually with your Leica, birds in flight for example. Leica is a fun anachronism. It has limited application in action shots.
35photo
Well-known
So let me get this straight, you actually think back in the color film days be in Kodachrome or another color film what ended up being printed matched what came straight from the camera??
lukitas
second hand noob
You're quite right, of course. Modern technology has made it much easier to produce a 'decent' photo. For a professional, a good hit rate is important and essential.
But as you say, it comes down to personal choice. I am in the luxurious position of one who does not need to sell photos. I can afford to miss shots, and to learn from mistakes. It was much easier with the fuji : set it, point and shoot, get a well-exposed, in focus shot every time. But that leaves an emptiness in my soul : the camera did all the work. With the Leica, I have to worry about focus, aperture etc. I have to teach myself to become a better photographer, or at least a better technician. And catching a bird in flight becomes a personal achievement.
In the digital realm, the leica M cameras are the only ones that offer that experience. For me, that makes it worth eating bread and carrots for a year to save enough to get one.
boojum
Mentor
You'e gonna turn orange. LOL
Out to Lunch
Menteur
Haptics aside, I've never understood this line of reasoning: select RAW; set the ISO; set the shutter speed; set the aperture, and focus manually. Your soul will be happy as a clam, even with a Fuji.
Cheers, OtL
luuca
Well-known
not exactly
clearly leica bodies are intended to be used in manual mode, despite other cameras
David_Manning
Well-known
*I'm a bit disappointed that my original post, simple as it is about asking about M10-P owners' experiences, can create such disharmony and emotion between people whose common touchstone is Leica photography.*
As I continue to consider a purchase, I'm leaning towards the M10-R because of the newer sensor. That being said, my Canon R5 takes incredible technical images and has a huge feature set, but I find myself turning full circle about why I enjoy shooting a Leica body.
I really like the color and contrast output from my M9, aside from narrow DR which gets worse with small increases in ISO...but it operates slowly and in a more clunky manner. You can tell the obvious difference that time makes with technology...after all, these are computers on the inside. And I've really grown to dislike the mechanical grind of the shutter mechanism.
So, at the end of the day, I'm still trying to coerce myself into a very fundamentally emotional and expensive purchase (M10-R or whatever) over just shooting with the great camera system I own today. I'm just writing my thought processes here.
Here's another question for the interwebs...anyone shoot both an R5 AND an M10-R? Thoughts, opinions?
As I continue to consider a purchase, I'm leaning towards the M10-R because of the newer sensor. That being said, my Canon R5 takes incredible technical images and has a huge feature set, but I find myself turning full circle about why I enjoy shooting a Leica body.
I really like the color and contrast output from my M9, aside from narrow DR which gets worse with small increases in ISO...but it operates slowly and in a more clunky manner. You can tell the obvious difference that time makes with technology...after all, these are computers on the inside. And I've really grown to dislike the mechanical grind of the shutter mechanism.
So, at the end of the day, I'm still trying to coerce myself into a very fundamentally emotional and expensive purchase (M10-R or whatever) over just shooting with the great camera system I own today. I'm just writing my thought processes here.
Here's another question for the interwebs...anyone shoot both an R5 AND an M10-R? Thoughts, opinions?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
David,
I wouldn't worry about it too much, or at least, I don't. Argument is how people with passion converse, at least in my family.
I've never even seen an R5 so can't offer anything there. I know nothing about that system at all.
The M10-R ... well, more resolution is usually good, newer sensor usually good, but how much more and how much difference the newer sensor actually make I have no idea at all. By and large, I like the two 50Mpixel cameras I have, but I wouldn't say that I find the resolution add over the 24 Mpixel of the CL or my previous SL/M-D262/M-P240 Leicas is all that huge a deal. I'd have to compare the M10-R and the standard M10 models specifically to know what to make of the difference. I'm pretty happy with 24 Mpixel as it is, and it's more resolution than I usually find I need anyway.
Good luck with your decision. No matter what you do, enjoy it.
G
I wouldn't worry about it too much, or at least, I don't. Argument is how people with passion converse, at least in my family.
I've never even seen an R5 so can't offer anything there. I know nothing about that system at all.
The M10-R ... well, more resolution is usually good, newer sensor usually good, but how much more and how much difference the newer sensor actually make I have no idea at all. By and large, I like the two 50Mpixel cameras I have, but I wouldn't say that I find the resolution add over the 24 Mpixel of the CL or my previous SL/M-D262/M-P240 Leicas is all that huge a deal. I'd have to compare the M10-R and the standard M10 models specifically to know what to make of the difference. I'm pretty happy with 24 Mpixel as it is, and it's more resolution than I usually find I need anyway.
Good luck with your decision. No matter what you do, enjoy it.
G
willie_901
Mentor
Look at this data from empirical dynamic range and low-light performance - here and here (zoom this chart to display only 24 x 36mm sensor data). I'm sure you can make your own conclusions.
Color perception is extraordinarily complicated. When one considers additional variables such as demosaicking algorithm differences and post-production rendering parameter choices, display calibration, etc., discussing personal preferences is futile.
boojum
Mentor
I would have to see a side-by-side picture comparison of the M10-R against the M8.2, M9 and M240 before I would endorse "personal preference is futile." The graphs and all that are nice but "show me the beef." It comes down to, "Can I afford it? Yes." "Do I want it? Not sure." If the M8.2 would die I might be hard pressed to choose between another M8.2 and the M10-R. If the M10-R does not have that M8.2 CCD magic it would be a hard decision. As always, YMMV.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I guess that is a blind spot to me. I never had an M8, did have an M9, but I have never seen any special magic to their color rendering. Always thought the JPEGs out of either were poor, actually: not very accurate or reflective of what my eyes saw. I switched my M9 to raw capture after testing the JPEG engine and never looked back.
The SL, CL, and M-P 240 all produce better color to my eye, in JPEG capture mode. Regardless, I usually switch all my cameras to raw only and render after the fact anyway.
G