Leica M10R camera - Any Users Experiences ?
- Thread starter Jag Audio
- Start date
I have an M10 and I would rather have a used M10 for £3,800 than an M10-R at £7,200.
I have a Q2 with the larger sensor and wide angle, so you still get great detail with most crops. With M10 I'm not going to be cropping much if at all and it's more about image quality from the lenses than the sensor. If I was pixel-counting, I'd get a Sony. So I've not had any inclination to upgrade, whereas the upgrade from Q to Q2 was a significant one. It was also cheaper. I bought the Q for £2,900, sold for £1,900 and paid £4,250, so £1,000 depreciation and £1,350 upgrade. The M10 would be about £2,250 depreciation and also £1,350 upgrade, so the M10 upgrade would be £3,600 against £2,350 for the Q/Q2, plus I had the Q or 4 years and and have only had the M10 for about 2 or 3.
All these sums are irrelevant for M digital fanboys.
I have a Q2 with the larger sensor and wide angle, so you still get great detail with most crops. With M10 I'm not going to be cropping much if at all and it's more about image quality from the lenses than the sensor. If I was pixel-counting, I'd get a Sony. So I've not had any inclination to upgrade, whereas the upgrade from Q to Q2 was a significant one. It was also cheaper. I bought the Q for £2,900, sold for £1,900 and paid £4,250, so £1,000 depreciation and £1,350 upgrade. The M10 would be about £2,250 depreciation and also £1,350 upgrade, so the M10 upgrade would be £3,600 against £2,350 for the Q/Q2, plus I had the Q or 4 years and and have only had the M10 for about 2 or 3.
All these sums are irrelevant for M digital fanboys.
alanbeeb
pfm Member
What is it about Leicas?
I've never held one in my hands and to me they just seem a cachet product that's all about a brand name.
Do they do anything other cameras don't? Or is it just the optics really are as good as claimed, or that the ergonomics are so well worked out?
It's a serious question... If there is a good answer I'd seriously think of saving my pennies for a Q2, I'd love a full frame fixed lens camera to not make any choices over and just take photos....but £4.5k is an awful lot of money!
I've never held one in my hands and to me they just seem a cachet product that's all about a brand name.
Do they do anything other cameras don't? Or is it just the optics really are as good as claimed, or that the ergonomics are so well worked out?
It's a serious question... If there is a good answer I'd seriously think of saving my pennies for a Q2, I'd love a full frame fixed lens camera to not make any choices over and just take photos....but £4.5k is an awful lot of money!
Bananahead
pfm Member
Thanks for the info, looks like the 2nd version of the Leitz Phone 1 may be worth waiting for with a large 1" sensor and hopefully several lenses rather than relying on a digital zoom only.
To be honest I use my iPhone 11 Pro Max quite a lot for many uses rather like a Swiss Army knife and always with me plus the telephoto lens is very useful indeed, my Leica M9P generally stays in the bag as does the Nikon D3X which I really like but is a bit of a lump yet steady at lower shutter speeds. I started using Leica M2, M3, M6 Titanium and nearly 10 years ago bought a new M9P and the lenses are superb.
I found the Leica M cameras to be less obtrusive and my highest selling photos were discretely shot on M6 with 35mm Aspherical Summilux lens in the mid 1990's so people did not see me as a press photographer etc but often commented on the "old fashioned" camera as they did about the Rolleiflexe and Hasselblad camera etc. I suppose one becomes adept at getting on with the process of image making with a simpler camera rather than having many modes etc and looking too sophisticated and at the end of the day a good high quality fixed lens is reasonably compact for carrying the combination around regularly as I used to do working with Getty Images in the good old days.
The introduction of the iPhone revolutionised the concept of filming in good quality video capture etc as well as acceptable quality for most genres of quick snapshot approach but still very capable in the hands of those who become adept and are image aware of aesthetic appreciations in everyday ordinary life. So if it's a image quality issue and working slowly/smoothly/discretely and respectfully with people then the Leica M cameras remain compact, reasonably well made and have very high quality lenses but spoiled (in my experience) by those seeking to trying to be regarded as "good" photographers by owning a Leica etc but in reality not because it's not the camera that takes the images but the photographer.
To be honest I use my iPhone 11 Pro Max quite a lot for many uses rather like a Swiss Army knife and always with me plus the telephoto lens is very useful indeed, my Leica M9P generally stays in the bag as does the Nikon D3X which I really like but is a bit of a lump yet steady at lower shutter speeds. I started using Leica M2, M3, M6 Titanium and nearly 10 years ago bought a new M9P and the lenses are superb.
I found the Leica M cameras to be less obtrusive and my highest selling photos were discretely shot on M6 with 35mm Aspherical Summilux lens in the mid 1990's so people did not see me as a press photographer etc but often commented on the "old fashioned" camera as they did about the Rolleiflexe and Hasselblad camera etc. I suppose one becomes adept at getting on with the process of image making with a simpler camera rather than having many modes etc and looking too sophisticated and at the end of the day a good high quality fixed lens is reasonably compact for carrying the combination around regularly as I used to do working with Getty Images in the good old days.
The introduction of the iPhone revolutionised the concept of filming in good quality video capture etc as well as acceptable quality for most genres of quick snapshot approach but still very capable in the hands of those who become adept and are image aware of aesthetic appreciations in everyday ordinary life. So if it's a image quality issue and working slowly/smoothly/discretely and respectfully with people then the Leica M cameras remain compact, reasonably well made and have very high quality lenses but spoiled (in my experience) by those seeking to trying to be regarded as "good" photographers by owning a Leica etc but in reality not because it's not the camera that takes the images but the photographer.
Last edited:
The Leica film cameras are superbly engineered and a pleasure to shoot with. Every photographer should try one at least once. They are a simple mechanical design that can be easily serviced by independent technicians, which is quite impressive for a 60 year old camera.
The Leica digital M cameras try to capture the experience of using the equivalent film camera, but I am not convinced they do this successfully. I owned an M9 for a while. They also do not have the reliability track record to justify the huge expense in my opinion.
The Leica M lenses are beautifully made, but the optical qualities are nothing special for the insane price. Similar if not better performance can be achieved at 1/10 of the price from Zeiss/Voigtlander lenses which are also niceley made. See this review for example: https://jacktaka.com/voigtlander-35mm-f2
In recent years Leica has been targeting hedge fund owners and footballers with their pricing - £7000 for a 50mm f2!!!! Completely insane.
Gromit
Plasticine Dog
I can relate to this, in fact my father once owned an M3 back when I was an early teenager and whilst I wasn't trusted to borrow it (I had my bombproof old Praktica Nova to use) it did leave a mark on me from just handling it. A beautiful thing.
My recent, albeit brief, foray into the M world (via an M-P 240) was extremely enjoyable. It was a lovely thing to use, nicely built, and produced great results. That Voigt Ultron 35 f2 is an utter peach too. I also got hold of a 50 f2 Summicron (6 bit) to see what the fuss was about. Super little lens (it really is tiny!) but didn't feel it gave enough back for its cost - I did sell it on for no loss though.
Why did I sell it on?
I'll say this; not for one moment did I regret buying it but for me, the cost wasn't justified by the output. The M240's dynamic range is poor, high ISO likewise, and in terms of colour rendition I much prefer my old (12MP) Nikon D700. I do know the M10 is rated as a big improvement in sensor performance, in fact I'd entertained the idea of picking one up, apart from the cost.
Still, there's the old adage 'the value of a thing is measured by the desire for it' and Leica are obviously not doing too badly. I'd also say that c/w with some 'boutique' audio, Leicas are actually relatively inexpensive and if someone put an M10-R in my hands I most definitely wouldn't say no.
JensenHealey
pfm Member
So here on a HiFi forum where few bat an eyelid at multi-thousand pound components when components costing a few hundred does the same job, pretty much - and we have some wondering why a camera can cost several times more than a run-of-the-mill variety? There would be expected to be an improvement in 'build quality' and 'pride of ownership', but it still just takes 'pictures'. Said pictures are of a 'quality' that is more to do with the conditions and the skill of the operator.... just like quality of hifi depends on room conditions and source material.
So I think.....If you can afford a fancy camera, that is justification enough - someone will build a unit to suit your desires. If you can afford a super-yacht someone will build one to suit your budget and display your wealth/good taste etc.
So I think.....If you can afford a fancy camera, that is justification enough - someone will build a unit to suit your desires. If you can afford a super-yacht someone will build one to suit your budget and display your wealth/good taste etc.
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
I'm willing to bet big money — a fiver at least — that I've pondered and goobed over Leica more than most. There's just something about that camera brand that holds my fascination. I fully understand why Gromit got the itch and why he needed to scratch it. But each time I've looked at one of the digital rangefinders and a few lenses (I'd likely want a 35, 50 and 90) the cost is crazy even if bought used.
It's not as though the new 907X | 50C digital back for the Hasselblad V-series cameras is sensibly priced, but if I had $8k to spare that's what I'd get. I picked up a used Hasselblad and a few Carl Zeiss lenses for well under a thousand clams several years ago, so the cost of going high-end digital would be just the cost of the digital back — an amount less than a Leica M plus lens or two.
I'm not looking to start a camera pissing contest, but a Hasselblad and digital back would be a major step up in resolution and dynamic range. You may not need 50MP, but 14-stops of dynamic range is huge. The main drawbacks are size and weight. A Hasselblad with an 80mm f/2.8 Zeiss lens isn't as small and as light as an M240 with a 50 f/2.
Joe
It's not as though the new 907X | 50C digital back for the Hasselblad V-series cameras is sensibly priced, but if I had $8k to spare that's what I'd get. I picked up a used Hasselblad and a few Carl Zeiss lenses for well under a thousand clams several years ago, so the cost of going high-end digital would be just the cost of the digital back — an amount less than a Leica M plus lens or two.
I'm not looking to start a camera pissing contest, but a Hasselblad and digital back would be a major step up in resolution and dynamic range. You may not need 50MP, but 14-stops of dynamic range is huge. The main drawbacks are size and weight. A Hasselblad with an 80mm f/2.8 Zeiss lens isn't as small and as light as an M240 with a 50 f/2.
Joe
Werner
pfm Member
When CMOS image sensors were still the subject of basic research Europe and the USA led the way, with Japan Inc just looking around. But once the Japanese and Taiwanese were up to speed, past 2003 or so, fueled by demand for cellphone cameras, they walked over us in all respects. At least in consumer… Of course their development budgets and vertically integrated resources were of a totally different order.
In that sense the completely Europe-made sensor in the Typ 240 was still a tour de force, built as it was in an industry that was not made for this sort of jobs. Its long development time, however, meant that is was outclassed from day one. The sensor in the M10 is much much better, and for a very little while was even a match for Sony’s best.
That Hasselblad video is fantastic... i've always fancied one, great idea from them to make a digital back so you can still use the older versions...but its bound to be expensive.
Looks like a fantastic accessory. I'll have to see if I can find an older body and lens.
I'm always intrigued by stuff that went to the moon...so love the Omega watches too!
I bought a Leica M10 with 35mm f1.4 as a retirement treat...lovely camera and lens, but probably use my Ricoh GRD more as its less precious.
The beauty of the Leica lens is that you can zoom in so much to get the right crop without losing any detail...the lenses have always been legendary for their lack of distortion.
Looks like a fantastic accessory. I'll have to see if I can find an older body and lens.
I'm always intrigued by stuff that went to the moon...so love the Omega watches too!
I bought a Leica M10 with 35mm f1.4 as a retirement treat...lovely camera and lens, but probably use my Ricoh GRD more as its less precious.
The beauty of the Leica lens is that you can zoom in so much to get the right crop without losing any detail...the lenses have always been legendary for their lack of distortion.
Yank
Bulbous Also Tapered
Do modern Hasselblads have auto-return mirrors?
Yank
Bulbous Also Tapered
According to the inflation calculator, a $515 Leica M3 w/50mm f:2 would be ~$4500 in 2021 dollars. So they've always been very pricy. And I suppose an M10-R is a bit more complex than an M3, but it's still almost four times the inflation-indexed price when you include a lens.
The interesting aspect of inflation regarding any good cameras such as Leica (particularly lenses), Hasselblad etc is that they hold their value and after initial purchase cost they sometimes can sell for more than original purchase price. I bought a new Leica M9P with a new 50mm 1.4 Asph Summilux etc and it can still sell for half the original cost after nearly 10 years later.
I also bought a Hasselblad 503CW body and a free A12 back in 1997 approximately for £1000 or so, same cameras now many years later sell for more than original purchase price so regard this as a reasonably good investment because think of all those optically excellent images taken ( can not comment on content and subject matter) and hiring a such equipment for that many years would have been astronomical. In the end it is the technical and aesthetic quality that counts and equipment is secondary. I am still impressed by some black and white images taken in the 1940's onwards on fast black and white film with Leicas, Nikons etc and the grainy images are technically not as "good" as current mobile phone cameras or other digital cameras.
My Nikon D3X in around 2009 was selling for around £8000 GBP I believe and there may have been better deals etc but now even with medium actuations shutter count they are valued at approximately £1000 for a nice clean example and more with original box etc. The Leica M9P has retained a considerable amount of it's original value on the used market in comparison and I still like both machines as they are capable of producing excellent images and I suppose that the latest is not necessarily the greatest although I do admit that sensor technology is moving on but not always the be all and end all of cameras capabilities.
Ergonomics do play a very important role in the design aspects and handling as does overall weight especially if one is disabled like me, some cameras are simply unusable by me due to a distinct lack of design consideration and not everyone is right handed, there are photographers who really struggle to find a "suitable" camera so it is not always a question of image quality or the price tag in the end. Sometimes I struggle to carry a camera bag around or use my right hand and arm so my left hand and arm have to be able to hold a camera, focus, adjust aperture etc and try to press with right finger which is extremely difficult in cold weather but I do struggle on. I do not want to accept my disability but I can not escape from the fact that it is there and if a particular piece of equipment allows me to continue working etc then it has a higher priority than price tag alone and just have to tighten my financial belt in other areas.
Yank
Bulbous Also Tapered
...or right-eyed!
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Yank,
I don't know the new Hasselblad line well, but I think the X System is mirrorless, the H System is a reflex design, and the V System is mirrorless unless you put the digital back bits (50C) on a V-series film camera.
• • • • •
Ah, man, Hasselblad saw me coming when they made this video. The only think missing is a Trek reference and maybe a Kanutu woman or something.
But I can't believe the beardy bloke left his funky studio with a record still playing. Amateur! Nice rug, though. It really ties the room together.
Joe
I don't know the new Hasselblad line well, but I think the X System is mirrorless, the H System is a reflex design, and the V System is mirrorless unless you put the digital back bits (50C) on a V-series film camera.
• • • • •
Ah, man, Hasselblad saw me coming when they made this video. The only think missing is a Trek reference and maybe a Kanutu woman or something.
But I can't believe the beardy bloke left his funky studio with a record still playing. Amateur! Nice rug, though. It really ties the room together.
Joe
Yank
Bulbous Also Tapered
Let me rephrase then - my last hands-on experience with a Hasselblad was in the 1970s, and at that time when you pressed the shutter, the viewfinder went dark until you advanced the film, then the mirror would return. Just like a '50s Exakta. Did this ever change, during the film era?
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
I often use a motorised body like a Hasselblad 555 ELD and 553 ELX which cock the shutter immediately and thus an automatic action to avoid the long black out as the mirror is returned to reflect the image into the viewfinder.
alanbeeb
pfm Member
Indeed. My nose is slightly flattened after years of looking through viewfinders on the left side of camera
I don't grudge this guy his enviable house, car or transparent speakers, because its so sad his cat died recently.
(Either that or he's wearing his kid's trousers.)
Anyway... digital backs: shame nobody managed to do this 35mm film cameras. Several good 35mm SLRs back in the day had interchangeable backs which would take supersize film rolls or imprint data onto the film frame.