RAW you made me laugh. If this Leica was a car, it wouldn’t be a ”Koenigsegg” not even close. It is not fast and has pretty lowly specs.

I agree that "Leica isn't about IQ", just about price & certain user experience.
I believe many people has ability to buy Leica (if not spent too much on car/house/travel), but smart on spent money at which important to them.

martiin:

That 56mm X lens isn't very special.

I can't comment on the 90mm, since I've not tried it, or not tried it to remember it.

The 63mm and 250mm Fuji GF lenses are good, Leica SL territory, but the best Leica Ms are significantly better.

Foskito:

And the Leica M lenses that are "just" $3500-5000 easily match, and some times surpass, any thing from specifically Nikon and Canon. Of course, Canon and Nikon have vastly more focal lengths available.

By and large, with 2 exceptions--and I'm including a $2000+ zoom on my list of excellent X lenses from Fuji, Fuji's X lenses are unremarkable.

"I use extensively the $4500 28mm f2 ASPH and it is ok."

I assume that's a Leica M. I've not tried it, but it's not a surprise you call it just "okay"; the M 50mm f/1.4 from Leica is just okay too. But as you know neither of those Leica M lenses are in the category of Leica's best.

RAW the point is that the 28mm f2 ASPH costs $4500. With that money I can buy exactly a Canon R and one RF L-lens which are stunning even if you don’t like them. And I will nail focus 100% of the time. And you need an extra $9000 for the M10 body!

What is the APS camera you said it can compete with Leica’s “good” lenses?

Foskito:

"if you need to spend 9000 bucks for this body and an extra 8000 for a 50mm APO in order to see an IQ upgrade, would be the definition of diminishing returns at its best."

Not if you care about higher IQ, and it's fine that some, like you, don't.

"Barney was using a 12000 dollars kit anyway and half the pictures are showing focusing issues."

You can take up the focus "issues" with Barney, has nothing to do with the lenses used.

The gear used cost more than $12,000, while very few Canikon lenses can produce results like these mid-range Leica M lenses.

Foskito, the Leica magic is all about pursuing the correct focus using the RF so that you can blame yourself and not the machine for the poor results. But, put it on a table and watch it for a minute, touch it, all its buttons and dials... It's a bit of a frustrating relationship, but once in a while you get the perfect photo out of it and you are happy until the next blunder comes...

You could say whatever you want, but a Canon R5 paired with those new RF L-primes like the 50mm 1.2 will give you the same or better results and with perfect focus every time. Again, at a fraction of the cost of this Leica kit.

"100% correct. This camera offers zero IQ advantage vs let's say a Canon R5 with L-glass which costs much less than this 9000 USD body alone."

IQ largely comes from lenses, bodies only offer better higher ISO performance--which can be helpful--and Leica's optically best M lenses are significantly better than any Canon lens.

True, the EOS R5 will do things this M10 body won't and there are zoom lens options for the R5. (Irony about which company first sold an ILC with the name R5.)

@Foskito your moaning about Leica price is of course 1000 percent productive. Keep going. I’m curious if you ever shot with Leica?

Miric...

To answer your question, since prehistoric times: Leica R3, R4, R6.2 R7, then Digilux 2 & Digilux 3 (I know those 2 are not pure Leicas).

Currently I am a proud owner of both an M8 and an M9-P “a-la-carte” fully refurb with new sensor, new shutter, new leather, etc which I bought exactly a year ago directly at Leica Wetzlar for $3000 USD. I love the look of the M9’s CCD and I wouldn’t trade it for any other Leica body regardless of price.

It is not about money, is about value for money. As simple as that.

Foskito:

Which Leica M lenses do you own?

@Foskito, OK man, my apologies about "ever shot". I used to have M9 for a couple of years. It wasn't a versatile cam for everything and had some flaws. Though even with 3rd-party lenses it made such amazing photos I still compare with my Canon EOS R and other previous cams and all of them don't compare with Leica. I hope one day I get M10 as a second travel cam with native 35 and 50. I can't forget the feeling of Leica.

to Indiana : not really - try compering shadow recovery +4 with D750 and any recent Canon FF and you will see the amount of difference

ConarexMan:

That 35mm f/1.4 is NOT one of Leica's optically best lenses. Not clear which 50mm f/2.0 the other samples where shot with. There are 2, one is just good.

We need to wait for more samples.

Garyster:

And the 2 lenses used are far from Leica's best M lenses.

Furthermore, since you commented while the DNGs were still corrupted, you're making a judgement based on, and ultimately about, the incamera jpeg engine of this M10, not a judgement about these images.

Garyster, you know it’s not only about pure IQ. Leica is a mechanical rangefinder digital camera made in smaller quantity by a luxury brand with boutique stores. This explains its price tag. If you are looking for practicality and value, it’s the wrong place to look. And no... I’m not buying it either.

All digital cameras have similar IQ. The difference lies in the way they work.

Leica still has magic in all their cameras. The magic is when you check into almost any luxury hotel with a Leica around your neck. Doors that were once closed to you will open.

brownie:

These ain't close to Leica's best M lenses.

Also you're judging from jpegs, I know this because the DNGs are corrupted and barely open.

So wait for more samples, ideally ones shot with better lenses.

@gaving:

Absolutely true, all APSC sensored, and larger, digital cameras shooting 14 bit low ISO samples have very similar IQ.

HOWEVER, all lenses don't have similar IQ--these 2 are far from Leica's best M lenses, even if the 35mm is expensive. AND cameras' bodies have significantly different higher ISO performance, something--by way of example--that the original M10 is only decent at.

Again with the collectors and dentists argument... yeez.

The emperor wears no clothes: give me $1500 budget (half that for APS-C) and I can pair a modern mirrorless camera with a Sigma summilux-class lens, and produce the same and better images. But then I wouldnt be in the red-dot club. Oh well, I'll cry about that continuously on the vacation(s) I take my camera on with the saved money.

"These ain't close to Leica's best M lenses."

So you need to buy an 9,000 USD camera body plus an 8,000 USD lens in order to see some Leica magic? I bet a Canon R5 plus some stellar L-glass can produce some (sharp) magic for a lot less.

Priaptor. There are amazing photographers using many camera brands so that is not exclusive to the “Leica forum”.

@Foskito

BIG difference.

Those on the Leica forum show their photos and not their petulance. Those on the Leica forum never (I haven't seen any) put down other equipment. No kidding there are other brands, however, those on the Leica forum don't act like a two year old to justify their equipment, They prove the capabilities with their output.

This reminds me of high end audio site where all anyone talks about is the equipment and rarely the music they listen to.

@Foskito

LMAO. Thanks for proving my point. You did it more eloquently than any of my criticisms of the petulant crowd here on DPR.

BTW - D850 + any premium Nikon glass will make this camera look like a broken vending machine.

brownie314 yes, actually my lowly Sony A7Rii paired with Zeiss glass can give this baby a run for its money at a fraction of the cost.

gavinlg:

No, all digital cameras using APSC, or larger, sensors can produce similar shots with similar IQ assuming one is shooting real 14bit raws and using the EXACT same lens.

So you are incorrect to ascribe IQ, good or bad, to the camera. IQ, setting aside higher ISOs, comes next to entirely from the lens used. No other camera maker, or lens maker, matches or surpasses Leica's best M lenses for optical quality. The lenses used for these samples, however, are far from Leica's best M lenses.

All the magic is in the photographer.
Probably we should start buying photographers instead of cameras. ,)

Foskito:

"So you need to buy an 9,000 USD camera body plus an 8,000 USD lens in order to see some Leica magic? I bet a Canon R5 plus some stellar L-glass can produce some (sharp) magic for a lot less."

You made a typical sharp mistake there. Good lenses are sharp, excellent lenses are sharp and have very good colour. The 50mm used for these samples achieves those goals, as would a good Canon L lens. Not all Canon Ls are especially good, though the Rs are generally better than the SLR lenses.

However extraordinary lenses are sharp, and have extraordinary colour, L lenses don't the colour.

Brownie,

Just to come close to the colour of the not best Leica M 50mm used in this sample set you'll need a Zeiss Milvus or Otus on that Nikon D850--no not a Sigma, but perhaps a Tamron would do.

That's a fine Nikon DSLR, but the lenses available for it don't come close to the absolutely best Leica M lenses--no, not even the Oti, but those sure are closer.

Foskito:

Canon doesn't have the colour of Leica's best lenses.

Also "Canon colours" in raw is a bit of myth, while where it exists it's a lens thing. So Zeiss would better.

I have no idea why you find focusing your M body/ies to be so troublesome. No, of course I'd not shoot action pro-foot ball shots with an M.

brownie:

I didn't say a thing about "award winning".

Also, in 2020, there is no current Canikon rangefinder, film or digital.

So your attempt at distraction is showing.

And by your way of thinking one only uses Nikon lenses on Nikons and Canon lenses on Canons.

Lets dig up these goal posts and move them over there. Now it has to be a rangefinder? We were talking about IQ 'magic'.

RAW the point is, these samples show nothing spectacular, unique, or out of this world in terms of IQ.

Let's see if you could answer this question without giving arguments or changing subjects, just a simple yes or no:

Would you spend a 14-15,000 dollars (M10R body and one lens) if you knew this would be the IQ you are going to get with your kit?

brownie314:

Doesn't have to be a rangefinder, but to come close to Leica's better M lenses, you'll need to use Zeiss Otus or Milvus lenses on that D850, AND LIKE a rangefinder those are manual focus lenses.

Now, there is one Nikon lens, AF, that's basically as good as a Zeiss Milvus lens, but it's $6000 and heavy.

Foskito:

"Would you spend a 14-15,000 dollars (M10R body and one lens) if you knew this would be the IQ you are going to get with your kit?"

That's a fake question, because you already know that I'd not purchase these lenses. And I can tell by your budgeting in constraint that you consciously constructed that fake question.

A much better question: Given the ability to also purchase any Leica M lens you like, would you purchase an M10-R once Leica updates the firmware?

Answer: That depends on how well the M10-R performs as a very high ISO body, which can depend on factors like better firmware.

Regards these 50mm f/2.0 samples posted at DPR, you'll have to use a Milvus, Otus, Loxia, or Batis lens to surpass these M examples for IQ.

The expense is rooted in the experience, or the doing, not a singular and linearly measurable technical aspect (the image quality). As an experience, the Leica M philosophy is unmatched by any other camera, at any price. Experience and process are inseparable from result (ie a rangefinder in use isn't equivalent to an SLR in use - they aren't just blunt tools in the same way a violin being played will never be the same as a guitar being played by musicians of equal skill).

The image quality is AT LEAST equivalent or near enough to the top tier current available. The optics available are AT LEAST as good as the top tier from other manufacturers, but the Leica M concept is mechanical fidelity, size/performance ratio, connectedness with process and subject in a way that no other camera system can match.

It's about user experience. It is satisfying to show people that you can afford it. If they even bother. IMO more kinda fetish product.

Iloveaircraftnoise:

Better colours, assuming you use the absolutely best M lenses (there are only 5 or 6) and you shoot raw.

Which are the 5 or 6 best M lenses?

Photo:

The best Leica M lenses, available new in July 2020, in no particular order: 75mm f/1.24, 50mm f/2.0 APO, 50mm f/0.95, 28mm f/1.4, and the 90mm f/1.5.

Indeed.

The Leica experience should bring you to a destination. Seems like the Leica SPECIAL hasn't arrived at the station.