– Shot on the Leica M10 with the Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 & Voigtländer 50/1.5 II
It’s been a while since I decided against upgrading from my Leica M Typ 262 in the near term.
The M 262 has been such a reliable companion, delivering practically everything I want out of a camera, and nothing I don’t.
Given the hefty price differential to the next iteration in Leica’s digital rangefinder series – the M10 – I’ve been hard pressed to see a strong reason for making the switch (not to mention the even pricier newer models, as lovely as they seem).
Still, as always, I’ve kept an eye on whatever used equipment has been popping up on the local market. This is where I tend to pick up most of my gear, as it generally allows for buying and selling things at fairly reasonable prices (and commonly without a loss).
Sometimes this way of buying gear requires a bit of patience, if I’m on the lookout for something specific. Other times, it prompts me to be a little opportunistic – going for good deals and purchasing things that I perhaps wouldn’t have otherwise.
Picking up the M10 was something of a mix of both. Aside from the prohibitive price, the M10 has still felt compelling to have a go with. So when a nice looking copy popped up at a substantially lower price than normal, I pulled the trigger.
This was now a good few months ago. So at this point I’m keen to share some of my thoughts and experiences with it so far – chiefly focused on how the newer M10 compares to my trusty M 262.
Before diving in, just a quick word on the lineage of the cameras here.
The M series of cameras from Leica stretch back to the introduction of the M3, back in the 1950’s. The move from film to digital happened with the crop frame M8 in 2006, followed by the full frame M9 in 2009.
Leica then took a bit of a sidestep with naming and launched the M Typ 240 in 2012, bringing a more modern sensor and architecture to the table.
The 240 was also quite feature rich, offering live view, video and a bunch of other bits and bobs.
Some people felt that the M 240 was too feature packed though, ending up bloated. Leica responded to those concerns by introducing the pared back M 262 in 2015.
Basically a simplified M 240, the 262 offers a lighter housing, a quieter shutter and more streamlined user experience by stripping out live view and video modes.
With that, we then arrive at the M10. Launched in 2017 it was an iteration on the formula attempting to build on top of the successful aspects of each of its predecessors.
The M10 has since been superseded by the M10-P and M10-R, as well as the M11. But as always, the availability of newer pieces of gear doesn’t impact the capabilities of what’s been previously available.
With that recap out of the way, let’s dive in to some impressions.
– Leica M10 with the Voigtländer 50/1.5 II
First off, I’d be remiss not to mention how exceptionally similar the M 262 and M10 look & feel in overall terms. Materials, proportions, fit & finish – everything is nigh on identical. One basically needs to look for differences.
But, as the earlier model was already so refined, that’s not a bad thing.
Leica M10 (L) & Leica M Typ 262 (R) – it certainly takes a trained eye to make out the differences.
Picking the camera up for the first time though, makes one of the changes compared to its immediate predecessors clear – the camera is thinner than the earlier digital models.
Slimming the housing down to reach the same dimensions as the classic film predecessors was seen as a huge boon when the M10 was first introduced.
On paper this felt quite compelling to me too. The M 262 has always felt ever so slightly chubby compared to the film M’s I’ve used. From a first impression standpoint then, the M10 does well – it sits nicely in the hand and is exceptionally reminiscent of the evergreen film M’s.
In use though, this difference quickly becomes less noticeable than I had anticipated. Whilst the cameras sit slightly different in hand, I wouldn’t necessarily say that the M10 ends up feeling substantially better. The M10 feels a little denser, but it doesn’t come across significantly smaller. Perhaps the difference would be more pronounced if I came from the heavier M 240, rather than the lighter M 262.
I’d call it a nice but subtle improvement then – something that will be a recurring theme and an aspect I’ll circle back to in my closing thoughts.
The Leica M10 is a little slimmer than the earlier digital M's, like the M 262.
Another change is the addition of an ISO setting dial on the top of the camera. Both the size and design of it is extremely similar to the rewind knob on the old Leica M3. It looks great!
In practice though, as someone that’s leveraging auto ISO most of the time*, I’ve not really been using it.
* For some folks I get the sense that this can be seen as almost heresy. But I’m too pragmatic to be bothered – if something works well for me, I’ll stick with it.
Still, as it also doesn’t get in my way, I quite like it, mostly then due to the nicer looks brought it brings.
The M10 offers a dedicated ISO dial and an even more streamlined interface than the M 262.
Beyond the thinner body and ISO dial, there are a few other nips and tucks.
Compared to the M 262 the M10 has fewer buttons and a more streamlined interface. The older camera never felt convoluted in my use, but the M10 does come across as a little more refined.
It also regains the frame line preview lever, missing on the 262. Nice.
A less noticeable upgrade at first glance is that the viewfinder has gotten a bump in magnification, going from 0.68 to 0.73. Eye-relief has also been improved.
This is another change where the difference is quite subtle in practice. Frame lines are ever so slightly easier to see with glasses and the rangefinder patch is ever so slightly larger and clearer. At times, I do feel that it’s a hair easier to nail focus too.
So whilst this change is sort of unnoticeable unless paying attention, it does make the camera just that slight bit nicer to use.
On the topic of focusing and framing, the M10 also offers live view.
This was a feature that was present in the M 240, but stripped out of the streamlined M 262. From my understanding the functionally and experience is also improved in the M10, compared to the M 240.
As live view been pretty much the only thing I’ve occasionally felt missing from the M 262, it’s been one of the M10’s more compelling features to me.
In practice then, the feature feels well considered and well designed.
I do find the experience of using live view a lot less enjoyable though, so I’ve still been relying on the regular old rangefinder throughout the vast majority of my shooting so far. But having the ability to switch in to live view for very precise compositions, for shooting at odd angles, or for focusing with dead on accuracy has certainly proven beneficial.
A general appeal with picking up any newer model camera tends to be superior image quality compared to whatever came before it.
With technological progresses, improvements are generally steady from generation to generation – resolution, dynamic range and low light sensitivity are all generally superior in newer cameras.
Between the M 262 and the M10, differences are – once again – pretty subtle though.
Both cameras offer the same resolution – 24MP. To me, this is still plenty: sufficient even for large prints*, without clogging up my workflows.
* To wit; I recently made some 1 meter wide prints from my M 262 and was really happy with how well they turned out & held up, even at such a large size.
Both cameras deliver sharp and detailed images with a high amount of clarity. That both cameras sensor stacks are thin and without antialias filters potentially contribute.
I will say though, that between the two cameras, the files out of the M 262 looks a hair crisper. Not sure as to why the technical reason is*, but comparatively the M10 lacks a little bite. The difference is quite subtle however, and a slight bit of sharpening in post tends to mostly level the field.
* If I were to wager I guess, I would suspect some differences in either the structure of the filter stack or potentially tweaks to the micro lens array.
High ISO isn’t really the M 262’s forte compared to contemporary cameras. I generally avoid shooting above ISO 2500 as noise becomes quite distracting beyond that point and some banding starts to read its head too.
I rarely feel all that limited by this day to day though, but an improvement is appealing nonetheless.
Here the M10 delivers better performance, but it’s again, it’s not earth shattering.
The files out of the M10 do stay reasonably clean and usable up to ISO 6400. Banding has also been less of an issue in my use so far. Another upside of the slightly better signal to noise ratio is that files are a little more malleable at mid-speed ISO settings too.
Compared to the M 262 then, it’s an easy stop and a half improvement, with slightly cleaner output in challenging conditions.
So not a change that tends to make or break an image, but more of nice, if somewhat incremental, improvement.
There’s not much to report on with regards to dynamic range between the cameras – I find it’s been so similar that I’ve been hard pressed to make out much of a difference.
Most importantly though, both cameras offer a sufficient range to capture even challenging scenes successfully.
Aside from these more technical factors of imaging, I was also curious about some of the more subjective aspects associated with the output. Had there been adjustments in for instance color response and rendition that influence the end result in positive or negative ways?
Over the years I’ve come to really enjoy the color rendition out of the M 262. It’s not always the most accurate out of the gate, but colors are strong and punchy with distinct separation between close hues. Oftentimes they can be too saturated and I frequently back certain shades down (reds and greens can feel a little overbearing). Sometimes the palette can be a little tricky to work with though, especially in low or mixed light.
In contrast the output from the M10 feels more stable. Colors seem a little more accurate and the tonal response feels more consistent in tricky conditions.
However, in my experience so far, the colors can feel a bit anemic at times. The overall rendition is less saturated, which is easy enough to work around whilst editing. However close shades of color also don’t seem as distinct, something that’s very hard to influence in post.
My suspicion based on this, is that Leica might have elected to sacrifice a bit of color fidelity for some gains in ISO sensitivity*. For a lot of users this likely makes sense, but for my personal use I would’ve made a different choice.
* As far as I understand – a color filter array that allows for a bit more transmission bleed between the red, green and blue channels result in more light passing through to the sensor in total, resulting in a higher signal to noise ratio. Basically it’s often a balance between transmission and accuracy.
This reduction in color fidelity, combined with the less biting sharpness and a flatter default contrast curve, means that images out of the M10 often end up a little tame compared to one’s out of the M 262. And whilst the files generally respond well to editing, I sometimes find it hard to get them to the point where they have the same zest.
To be fair, I might still need some time to get used to working with the files out of the newer camera. But so far, from an overall rendering point of view, the output I’ve been getting out of the M10 has felt very competent, but a bit less inspired than what I’ve come to expect out of the M 262.
The M10 does better than the M 262 in low light, but its output can lack a little zest at times.
– Leica M10 with the Voigtländer 50/1.5 II and 50/1.2
With the step up to the M10, there’s also a clear tradeoff: battery life is significantly worse.
The M 262 lasts for an absolute age on a single charge. I often go on trips with a single battery and not even bringing the charger. It’s probably the best camera I’ve used in this regard.
The M10 on the other hand, is more in line with typical mirrorless cameras. While I easily get through most days, or even a few, on a single battery, I do need to be mindful about battery life to a much higher degree.
It’s still fine, and I would’ve probably not even given much thought to it if I hadn’t been so spoiled by the M 262’s battery. But as it stands, it feels like a pretty noticeable step back.
Every digital Leica I’ve had has suffered from the occasional glitch or hiccup. From time to time the M8, M9 and M 262 have all frozen on me. This tends to require the battery to be pulled out and then reinserted for the camera to recover. Of those, the M 262 has been the most stable with only rare occurrences of freezes.
The M10 has been less stable for me, with freezes at a similar cadence, but with other hiccups in addition.
At a more frequent rate than I’d like, the camera has failed to recognize the SD card inserted when turned on. The fix is simple – switching the camera off and then on again solves it. But the issue still causes an annoying delay whenever popping up.
In a few instances the camera has also been disregarding my preferred setting to disable the 6-bit lens profiling (as none of the lenses I’m currently using offers this, I’ve elected to keep it turned off). However, I’m not sure if there’s some sort of intended behavior being induced here. I’ve found it odd nonetheless.
My biggest headache with regards to reliability during this initial period of time with the M10 has been of a mechanical nature though.
Intermittently the camera has been suffering from a sticky rangefinder coupling arm. Basically, the coupling arm (the part relaying the lens’s physical focus position to the actual rangefinder in the camera) sometimes get stuck at or around infinity focus (i.e. all the way in to the body), resulting in the focusing patch in the viewfinder also not moving. This basically leaves the camera really hard to use as intended. At least the coupling arm has become unstuck reasonably quickly in these instances.
As mentioned, the issue has been very intermittent, so at first I wasn’t sure it required fixing or if a bit of use would sort it. But as I write this, I’ve booked time with a service tech to take a look at it.
Whilst I’m confident that it’s a fairly simple fix, this on and off issue has definitely been an annoyance during my time with the camera so far.
So, I’m of two minds on the M10.
On the one hand, it takes practically everything I like about the M 262 and improves on it. Even if, as noted throughout the article, several of the individual upgrades are of a more subtle nature, they do add up. Taken together all those little nips and tucks and refinements amount to something that feels like a rather substantial step forward.
I was expecting a few improvements, but didn’t quite anticipate how they would add up to something that feels so much more refined, especially considering that the M 262 already was very polished. I’d say it’s quite an impressive example of an iterative process.
– Leica M10 with the Voigtländer 75/1.5 & Voigtländer 50/1.5 II
Something I wasn’t expecting though, was to feel like I was taking a step back from an image quality point of view. Sure, the M10 is highly capable of excellent results, plus offers some nice improvements for shooting in challenging conditions. But in my day to day, most of the shooting happens in conditions where those aspects are less important. And under these more common scenarios I’ve so far – from a purely subjective point of view – tended to prefer images out of the M 262, where I feel its output offers a bit of zest that’s not quite replicated with the M10.
This surprising backwards step, in conjunction with the intermittent hiccups I’ve ran into, has meant I’ve had a hard time fully bonding with the camera.
So, for my personal use, the jury’s still out on if the M10 is a better fit for me than my trusty M 262. My plan is to have the rangefinder arm looked at and then give myself a little more time with the camera before deciding.
In terms of a more objective and general assessment however, these subjective reservations and experiences shouldn’t take away from how successful the M10 is on the whole.
The Leica M10 manages to improve on the nicest camera I’ve ever shot in almost every way. Consequently it takes the crown as the most enjoyable piece of kit I’ve ever had a chance to shoot, as well as being a highly capable tool to boot. What a feat!
All photos in this post were taken using the Leica M10. Images of the cameras were made with a Sony A7C and Tamron 70-300 A047. Exif-data is intact. Open any image in a new window for a closer look.
