Leica M10: A classic reinvented

DxOMark Sensor

Leica M cameras boast a long and prestigious heritage, with the first analog M model dating back to 1954. The M8 was the first digital option unveiled in 2006, and Leica has experimented with different designs and specifications since. Launched in January 2017, the Leica M10 is the latest incarnation, offering a svelte mirrorless design built around a 24Mp full-frame CMOS sensor. Claimed to be the slimmest digital Leica M camera of all time, the M10 offers similar proportions to those legendary M analog versions, revered by photojournalists and street photographers alike for their petite dimensions and simple controls. Combining a rangefinder or viewfinder for composing, the Leica M10’s rangefinder boasts a 30% larger field of view, greater magnification, and improved eye-relief distance compared to its predecessors.

The M10 also features Leica’s latest Maestro-II image processor, which offers ISO sensitivity between 100 and 50,000; further, the M10’s Leica M-Bayonet lens mount ensures compatibility with almost all M-system lenses, as well as Leica screw-mount lenses via an adapter. As usual, the Leica M10 is manual focus, so using legacy lenses is a viable option, although the Leica 6-dot coded M lenses are recommended for full electronic coupling. We’ve been busy getting to know the Leica M10 during our industry-standard benchmark testing and can now lift the lid on the verified results.

Key specifications:

  • 24Mp full-frame CMOS sensor
  • Leica Maestro-II image processor
  • ISO 100–50,000
  • 5fps burst shooting
  • Rangefinder viewfinder
  • Leica M-Bayonet lens mount

Overall performance

The Leica M10 achieves an overall DxOMark sensor score of 86 points and ranks as the second-best Leica sensor we’ve tested, just behind the Leica SL (Typ 601) with 88 points. That second-place finish among Leica sensors holds true at the sub-score level, too, with a Portrait (color depth) score of 24.4 bits and a Sports (low-light ISO) score of 2133. The M10 drops into third place for Leica sensors for Landscape (dynamic range), but its score of 13.2 EV is only fractionally behind both the Leica SL (Typ 601) and the Leica M Typ 240.

Image quality compared

While the M10’s overall score and sub-scores are good, they fall behind the best full-frame image quality we’ve found with the Sony A7R III and the Nikon D850. As you can see, head-to-head against the top-performing Nikon and Sony full-frame sensors, both with 100 points, the Leica M10 achieves a lower result for all three sub-scores. For color depth (Portrait score), the Leica M10’s 24.4 bits is a stop behind the Sony AR7 III at 26 bits, and around a stop-and-a-third off the Nikon D850 at 26.4 bits. The gap is also slightly wider with dynamic range (Landscape score) results, where the Leica M10’s 13.2 EV is trumped by over 1.5 stops by both the Sony A7R III at 14.7 EV and the Nikon D850 at 14.8 EV.

Click here to open our interactive DxOMark image sensor ranking tool

In fact, the Leica M10’s sensor scores are more on par with the best APS-C chips we’ve tested in mirrorless cameras, such as the Samsung NX500 and the Sony A6300. Headline sub-scores for color depth (Portrait) and dynamic range (Landscape) are either the same or better for both the Samsung NX500 and the Sony A6300. Dynamic range is better at base ISO for these top-performing APS-C chips, too, offering half or two-thirds of a stop better performance compared to the M10 at base ISO. So while the M10’s 24Mp full-frame CMOS sensor has great specifications, it doesn’t quite hit its full potential. Where the M10 outperforms the APS-C chips is for low-light ISO performance (Sports), thanks to its physically-larger full-frame sensor, with larger photosites, pixel pitch, and light-gathering capabilities. So good color sensitivity as well as dynamic and tonal range can be captured on the M10 up to ISO 2133, which is around a third of a stop better than for the APS-C chips.

Click here to open our interactive DxOMark image sensor ranking tool

In-depth comparisons

For more details about sensor performance, our in-depth analysis takes a closer look at the Leica M10 compared to one of the highest-scoring full-frame sensors in the Nikon D850, as well as against the APS-C Sony A6300.

Landscape (Dynamic Range)

For dynamic range, the Leica M10 is around 1.5 stops behind the Nikon D850 at their respective base ISOs, with scores of 14.81 EV vs. 13.24 EV. That advantage is broadly maintained and very slightly improved as ISO sensitivity is increased, making good dynamic range around 10 EV possible on the Nikon D850 up to ISO 6400, compared to ISO 3200 on the Leica M10. The difference is smaller at base ISO compared to the APS-C Sony A6300, but the physically-smaller chip offers around a 0.5-stop advantage, with scores of 13.73 EV vs. 13.24 EV. Dynamic range between ISO 100 and 400 is essentially the same between the M10 and the A6300, but the Sony sensor benefits from a slight rise in performance at mid and high ISO settings, where again it offers around a half-stop advantage over the M10.

We detected some strange behavior for dynamic range on the M10, with quite aggressive offset correction for darker tones. All sensors have an offset correction. Some manufacturers apply it to the RAW file, others apply it as a first step in RAW conversion, as RAW files will not inherently record the darkest tones at a zero value. There is a risk of a homogeneous glare effect being visible on the image if an offset is not applied, but offset correction that is too strong results in shadow clipping. In conclusion, the M10’s dynamic range could be better with a better-implemented offset correction.

Portrait (Color Depth)

Performance for color sensitivity broadly follows the same pattern for dynamic range, with the Nikon D850 outperforming the Leica M10 at all sensitivities, and with essentially the same results as the Sony A6300. For the greatest color rendition, the Nikon D850 offers 26.4 bit color depth at base ISO, which is over a stop better than the Leica M10 and the Sony A6300. The gap narrows a little as sensitivity is increased, resulting in around half a stop better color on the Nikon, but the Nikon remains ahead at all sensitivities.

We also noticed a particular issue for color on the Leica M10, with a difference in levels of color saturation in the highlight regions. At 1 pixel wide, color saturation isn’t the same line by line, which risks the possibility of visible banding, especially in large areas of highlight detail if image files aren’t well-managed during processing.

Sports (Low-Light ISO)

Signal-to-noise (SNR 18%) ratios are pretty good on the Leica M10, with a well-managed signal confining noise to around 32 dB up to ISO 3200 on “normalized” printed results. Viewing prints, the Nikon D850 manages to display slightly less noise, despite the fact it offers nearly double the resolution of the Leica M10. Both physically-larger full-frame sensors also give the M10 and D850 an edge over the Sony A6300 for noise, but the difference isn’t dramatic.

As for results for full-resolution images analyzed on-screen, the Leica M10 offers a slight improvement over both the D850 and the A6300 sensors, thanks mostly to its favorable pixel pitch.


For pure sensor performance, the Leica M10’s 24Mp CMOS chip is in the same ballpark as recent Leica full-frame chips. Its odd behavior for both color and dynamic range is worth looking out for, and it’s fair to say that although sensor quality is good, it could be improved with better implementation. Compared to the top-performing full-frame sensors we’ve tested, the M10 lags a little behind at base ISO and throughout the sensitivity range, with image quality more in line with the best APS-C chips. So better image quality is available and the M10 isn’t cheap, but first-class engineering that meets the Leica standard never is. However, a digital camera with similar proportions to analog M cameras will be hugely appealing to Leica enthusiasts. Add to that compatibility with almost all Leica lenses ever made, as well as its simplicity of operation, and the M10 will be an attractive proposition to those who appreciate the quality of the Leica system.

In this review we have compared the Leica M10 to its most direct rivals that we’ve tested. As usual, you can create your own comparisons and in-depth analyses using our interactive image sensor ranking tool.

  • So i can choose to buy one M10 or a a7r3 plus a d850. Right?

    • Tim Fisher

      …. and your point being?

      I suspect this camera in your hands = failure.

      • Yuki Fuyui

        His point being you uneducated illiterate fool is that for a camera this poorly performing comparable to its ridicules pricetag he can buy two high end system cameras for the same price that has 50 times more features and vastly superior specifications.

        • Tim Fisher

          You really have no idea what’s going on, do you! Funny comments though, shot through was such a fundamental lack of knowledge and certainly no indication of even a soupçon of wisdom = failure.

          • Yuki Fuyui

            You are too childish to even properly argue, what the heck is wrong with you? Did you donate your brain to science to afford the Leica?
            Lets do a proper comparison, your Leica M10 versus my Sigma SD Quattro, lets see who shoot the best pictures straight out the camera with no edits, I dare you.

          • Bernard Miller

            I would think Tim’s point is that the camera doesn’t make the photographer, and that in certain hands (ahem) the fanciest and best digital camera may make technically perfect images of…boring rubbish.

            One thing that I object to with many digital cameras with superbly high performing sensors is that they actually get in the way of taking good photos, especially when working quickly. You have to *fight* some of them to get them to do what you want.

            While the M10’s sensor may indeed not be quite so technically brilliant as your Quattro, the simplicity and efficiency of the Leica interface quite frequently, for some users, enables them to work in a seamless and unencumbered way that enables them to get things they might not be able to with other, more theoretically capable cameras. That’s always been the appeal of the Leica to those who use them as working tools, rather than as expensive and showy jewellery–which is why they have remained the tools of choice for some very, very good photographers indeed.

            I still use a battered, relatively cheap, old M3 to shoot film on occasion. I find it much more fun and efficient to shoot than any digitial camera I own—although of course they are used for most of my work and are much more sutiable for some (most, really, for me) subjects and projects.

            We get it, you’ve got a really great camera—on paper. The question would probably be how proficient you are with it—and what you produce with it. I’ve seen some people—plenty of them, really—with fantastic gear they’re quite proud of and defensive about producing frankly crap, boring photos. Calling other folks whose qualifications you know nothing about names and insulting them just because you have “better” gear—while quite possibly producing inferior photos in terms of artiistic ability, vision, creativity, presence and interest—really doesn’t help you make *your* points, sir.

          • Yuki Fuyui

            I get your point albeit I was never arguing against the use of skills in photography laid in the hands of the equipment, quite the opposite.

            And I would like to take some time to remind people that the Sigma SD Quattro is an absolutely b**** to shoot with, if anything its like shooting an analogue film camera, its slow, bulky, heavy and there no fancy autofocus in there that is going to make wonders not to mention the resolution on the display is horrible.

            My point which flew over your heads like a cannon ball. was that the Leica M10 is an overpriced junk, a bling bling one buy to elevate ones status like iPhone X, no one really cares but somehow the person who buy these useless vanity item does so to compensate for something.

            If you really wanted to take it “slow and steady” as most Leica fanboys like to say, then go shoot analogue its VASTLY cheaper and you can shoot film for 10 years for the price of 7k, medium format film.
            And its quite ironic that my 500 dollar Sigma SD Quattro outperform your 7000 dollar Leica M10 in images yet its also so outstandingly slow to use and bulky to handle that most people who buy a Sigma know what the heck they are doing when they use it too, people who buy Leica M10 know nothing about handling their money, how in Gods name do you expect me to assume they know how to handle photography? They buy it so they can act like they are something they never will be.

          • Alphageist

            And your Sigma Quattro suffers greatly when shot beyond base ISO. I’ll stick to my M10, A7RIII, Fuji X-E3 and X-T20 cameras.

            Spend your money how you wish. The money spent on my Leicas and Leica lenses are worth more to me and my hobby and profession than someone else’s opinion and, in some cases unfound jeaslousy.

          • Yuki Fuyui

            You think we care if it suffers beyond 800 ISO? No.
            LOL you have 4 cameras, COMPENSATING MUCH?
            Vanity reaches astonishing levels, you must be HIGHLY jealous of my 5 million dollar savings.

          • Alphageist

            Yes, I do have those and many more cameras. Film and digital. The cameras I use are tools and each camera performs better than others in certain situations. They help pay the bills and provide fun and enjoyment. I know their strengths and weaknesses which allows me to pick either the right tools for the job. You missed my point with your myopic and frankly, disgusting “internet-tough guy” behavior.

            So you never shoot beyond 800 ISO? Sure, Foevon sensors are pretty cool, but they’re not my cup of tea. I certainly won’t put down someone for choosing it as their main, backup or for “funsies” camera. It’s their prerogative and their money.

            Congrats on your 5 million savings. Maybe you could use some of it to learn some manners and general decency. But hey, it’s your money.

          • Yuki Fuyui

            You came to the wrong place for manners poor fragile thing, you better off going to your safe space

          • Alphageist

            Triggered much, snowflake?

          • bchalifour

            Then why don’t you just buy a brain, or wait until experience teaches what you seem to ignore… ;O)

          • Yuki Fuyui

            What a grown up comment*clap, clap*

          • bchalifour

            Communication only works if we speak the same language. I tend to adapt (but you are right the lowest common denominator may not be the best solution, even here).

          • PaulL

            You sound very bitter….

          • Yuki Fuyui

            You most likely have a disorder then

          • bchalifour

            I doubt your Quattro outperforms an M10. Having used both I can assure you it does. Both are interesting cameras, for very different reasons. Now choosing between a Sigma and a Leica (I have even used the first 14Mp DSLR they released in 2004 and at the time I was tempted, the colors look a little better than most cameras. I am glad I did not. They have kind of stagnated, the issue with high ISO has not really been solved. The writing of images on the memory card is still so slow and the resale price of these cameras is definitely not interesting even 5 years after the fact. As for the pleasure of using them… minimal from my point of view. To use a reference very few will downplay, I am yet to hear of a Magnum photographer using a Sigma, and if there is one he must be quite isolated. Those guys have used cameras every day, everywhere in the world, and this since 1947 … guess what crappy junk cameras those uneducated illiterate photographers use? Why do you think it is? Frill or quality and reliability? Make a blind guess, have an informed opinion (for a change).

          • Yuki Fuyui

            You basically insulting analogue photography just to bloody defend your vanity Leica, amazing

          • bchalifour

            ??? How so?

          • PaulL

            A 100ml plastic cup can hold the same amount of liquid as a 100ml crystal glass…….but it’s still a plastic mug………

            It’s ok if you can’t afford one. No need to be bitter

          • Yuki Fuyui

            And heavy duty porcelain cups survive 5000 years of time, crystal glass barely survives 5 years yet costs 50 times more.
            Your argument is vanity.

          • bchalifour

            So you mean we would have to deal with your slowness and awkwardness? (By the way we already have). You must be such a blissful (but vindictive) chap!

          • Yuki Fuyui

            At this point you should seek help and avoid photography, people who shot analogue would beat your tiny arse of they every saw you they way you talk.
            Quite frankly you are not a photographer just a child a petty one. You think speed as something to do with photography? No kids, you think the cameras matter? No kid, what matters is the end results.

          • bchalifour

            I hope you are having a lot of fun at trolling and showing off your incommensurable ignorance in this field. For your own sake, before you mention analog (only meaning silver-halide based photography I assume), know that I have worked with probably any and every format used in 35 mm to 8×10″ film cameras, at least one one us has got better chances to know what he is talking about,… but that only makes one, not exactly suited for a good conversation unless a Q/A or a trolling one. ;o)

          • bchalifour

            Yes let us work at 1600 ISO and over and see what happens !! ;o)

        • PaulL

          A 100ml plastic cup can hold the same amount of liquid as a 100ml crystal glass…….but it’s still a plastic mug…..

          • bchalifour

            Agreed. And sorry Yuki but the experience/pleasure from champagne drunk out of a crystal is superior to that of the same champagne drunk out of a plastic glass. And who can deny the importance of pleasure in one’s well-being and life? Let us discuss the matter in 20 years when a few lessons have been learnt (hopefully).

    • Shandilla Shenamere

      His point is that you could by one of many OTHER cameras than the Leica and use the difference to travel to nice places where you could take great pictures. There is no doubt the Leica lenses are superb, which is where an adapter comes into play. Gone are the days when a new Leica camera could be enjoyed for a lifetime. The world of digital has made everything disposable.

      • bchalifour

        Traveling does not make nice pictures, or we would know it! The photographer does… or not. Some of Paul Strand’s best work, and he is just not anyone in the history of the medium, was photographed on his doorstep. According to the above reasoning they should be awful. I suggest the reader looks at them. Today’s Leicas are not disposable either, what for? It is true that the technology has evolved fast and the market has been a whirlwind but at this point there is a lot most cameras offer that I will never use, thence the durability (built), the quality of both body and lenses make sense… especially in the long run. Leica is not about gadgets or gimmicks, just simple, effective, no-frill photography. [not that some do not buy Leicas out of “frill”; I thank them because the Leica used market is a fantastic one for one who wants to try (resale at the same price as you bought used is a no brainer).

    • bchalifour

      If you have 6 hands, 6 eyes and money to spare, sure !

  • Silvestro Crino

    Bottom line… The M10 is capable of producing stunning pictures… if you have the eye and vision to be able to take those pictures…. So go out and shoot….

    • If i have the eye and vision to be able to take stunning pictures, i can do it even with a camera very very cheaper then M10.

      • PaulL

        A 100ml plastic cup can hold the same amount of liquid as a 100ml crystal glass…….but it’s still a plastic mug

    • bchalifour

      Agreed I was amazed by its superiority with high ISOs compared to the M240 (even slightly better than the Q.

  • Yuki Fuyui

    For a pricetag of 7k dollars and it barely can do better in scientific score than a Samsung NX500 albeit it performs better in low light, but only barely.
    This is vanity item at the worst of it, anyone buying this should resign their humanity.

    • Andrew

      Yuki, this Camera is specialty, like red wine. You either enjoy it’s taste and feeling and company, or not. Price/performance logic here is not the main factor that is sold. Lenses and user experience is what is sold here.

      • Shandilla Shenamere

        How can you compare the Leica to red wine? Unless you intend to choose an over priced wine of “equal” taste. Presumably an expensive wine will deliver a unique tasting experience. What this analysis shows is that the effective performance of the camera will have more to do with the user than the label on the lenses or camera body. If “image” and prestige are your thing, spend the money. If the camera is a tool to take pictures, choose the least expensive because in a few years, all will be obsolete.

        • PaulL

          I can never figure out if the Leica bashers just don’t get it or simply can’t afford one (and are bitter about it)…..

          • bchalifour

            Probably both, and there is nothing wrong with not being able or choosing not to spend one’s financial resources in that direction, but having an uninformed opinion and being loud about it is another issue. ;o) Ha, youth !

          • Most people who question this camera aren’t “bashing” Leica, they’re just trying to understand what the extra $5K buys you— since it isn’t better (or even competitive) image quality. Not all buying decisions are rational, but to photographers, who usually obsess over the particulars of their craft, it’s probably extra difficult to understand the subjective benefits of a camera body like this, since so little is subjectively of worth outside of image quality.

            It seems like Leica owners treat their cameras like watch collectors treat their watches— yet because the technological feat of keeping time was long ago solved, the subjective love affair with a digital camera is hard to make sense of. (Leica’s film cameras are a different topic.)

          • Aldo Bianchi

            “vulpes altam in vinea uvam appetebat…”

        • bchalifour

          Funny I still use an M2 that is some 50 years old with the same lenses I can use on an M10… which means I do not have to buy a new set of lenses when I upgrade with Leica. Which also means, obsolescence is relative; all I need is a shutter, and aperture, a good sensitive surface (film or sensor) AND a good lens,… I can provide the rest. At this point what we get being beyond what we used to get with film why should I need a new Leica in the next 10 years (I did not in the last decades). This has been my experience, you can dismiss it, but looking back I would not have it any other way (well over a hundred thousand images can sustain my point). The problem with a good wine is that you can only experience it one; the thing with a Leica (all film Ms and since the M240 for digital) is you can experience them for a lifetime a be perfectly content. If you want to invest for a lifetime you need quality of construction, no-one denies that about Leicas–just facts.

      • Yuki Fuyui

        In that case why not just buy Sigma for 200 dollar, these cameras are closest to analogue film as they actually capture 3 colours per pixel instead of just one colour per pixel and then combines them into 3 in post LIKE the Leica does.

        What you want to say is that if you have no brain and a lot of money, buy Leica M10 for 7000 dollars, because you have no skill in photography one might as well have an expensive kit to make up for it.

        And then actually good photographers can buy cheap second hand Sigma cameras which are slow and very awkward to use yet produce fantastic images.

        • bchalifour

          As if “analog” color was the best, or even simply better than what we can hget now with a good sensor. If you get a Sigma for $200 a-it is certainly not a @4 Mp (equivalent) sensor, and you also need to buy a lens for it! ;O)
          I know a lot of brainless people that either buy cheap things that they have to replace and cost them more in the long run (without experiencing quality), or say brainless things in areas they should be quiet about until they get a solid experience. ;o)
          Now the day I want slow and awkward… I’ll think of you.

          • Yuki Fuyui

            Colours are subjective matter but to suggest that capturing 3 colour data per pixel versus only one as is with CMOS is somehow “worse” is pure insanity on your part and Sigma cameras shoot vastly superior resolution than most cameras, you have vastly more information per pixel which generate higher spatial resolution.

            And you do not need to lie to me in that regard I have the Samsung NX1 and the Sigma SD Quattro, I know the SD Quattro shoots vastly superior resolution images than the NX1 at base ISO.

            Funny enough both cameras with their respected lenses cost me less than a single body of Canon 5DM4 or A7RIII

            Well fool, one day when you too can buy anything you will realise there is a difference between paying for made in China 200 dollar and made in China 7000 dollar, except there really is no difference.
            The difference is in who designs the product unlike the Leica which is made in China, my Sigma is made in Japan and my NX1 is a rare breed made in Korea, most of them are made in China though.

            Never the less, it seems YOU will be the one replacing a 7k dollar camera every so often from breaking as Leica and their reliability issues are known in many photo circles, good luck repairing them LOL

          • bchalifour

            No colors are not a subjective matter. Your perception of it may be, blinders or blindness do not help, I agree. I never said that colors with a Quattro are better or worse than with an M10, at this stage of technology it does not matter anymore and can be easily corrected if need be. I even said (below in the conversation) that Sigma colors in 2004 were probably the best you could get… at the time, but that is not the case anymore. Theoretically you might be right because there is no extrapolation with the Foveon sensor but because of it very structure it is also problematic (noise and color) once you increase the ISO. Who needs 400 or 800 ISO, even 1600 or 3200, believe it or not, I do. Thence my choices, that simple too.

          • Yuki Fuyui

            Colours are not real so yes they are LOL in every shape and form subjective even to individual cameras.
            In reality the is only light, white is when there is light and black when there is no light and anything in-between is shades of grey.
            Your perception of colours are based on how light bounces off objects and colour varies for everyone so yes red may not be as red for you as it may be for others.

          • bchalifour

            ??? Stay with IT… or learn more about color theory before typing, you’ll save us both time, and may sound interesting.

          • bchalifour

            Where the hell in China is the M10 made? Enlighten me there.

            I suppose you also mean that the whole brand new factory in Solms is just an empty shell?

      • bchalifour

        The problem with a good wine is that you can only experience it one; the thing with a Leica (all film Ms and since the M240 for digital) is you can experience them for a lifetime a be perfectly content. If you want to invest for a lifetime you need quality of construction, no-one denies that about Leicas–just facts.

    • bchalifour

      1-Have you ever used one for any length of time? [that would guarantee some objectivity in your lashing “opinion”] 2-if you owned, as some do, lenses that are 25 to 45 years old (were expensive too at the time) and work perfectly (both mechanically and optically) with a 2017 digital state-of-the-art body, you might reconsider, 3-if you could see the difference between an image taken with a Leica lens and any other lens (film and digital-and I have met such people) … then we could agree on the single fact that it is in deed an expensive camera, but quality has a price. See how much people still ask for to sell there almost 30-year-old M6s or even M4s? See how much one can get now for a Nikon F3 or a Canon F1 (even worse as Canon totally changed their lens mount). The rest is just ignorance I fear.

      • Yuki Fuyui

        You have to be hilariously nitpick to see difference between a 200 dollar lens and a 2000 dollar lens.
        Most people who see the images or watch the video/movie do not care what lens was used, only twats like you do.

        • bchalifour

          My advice, stay with IT until you can have a grown-up conversation in this field and stop trolling us. ;o)

          • Yuki Fuyui
          • bchalifour

            ” for that matter why is a $5,000 lens worth it? For photographers who take stills, those things like flaring, edge-to-edge sharpness, and aberration are actually very important; for cinematographers, it often comes down to ease of use.” (from the petapixel references that is mainly for cinematographers. If I recall neither the M10 nor the Sigma Quattro can film, so let us make some sense here). By the way “ease of use” is also a criterion for us photographers who use our equipment all the time.

  • TinusVerdino

    Test the Pentax KP please

  • ConCor

    So where is the LG V30 review? These phone scores are pretty useless without it to compare with.

  • LOL!! these battles about Leica Price tag vs image quality.. It’s funny how no one who owns a Leica complains about the price… and we are the ones who had to pay it.. Love my M10.. it is king of all my cameras.

  • Renco Hatenboer

    In the old analog times every camera has the same sensor (tri-x, kodak, fuji) . A Leica is more then a sensor. That’s why people pay for it.

    • Okay, I think I’ve got it now… so a Leica is basically the ultimate camera— so long as we’re not discussing its ability to capture images?

  • Fei Li

    I was asked ‘what kind of photograph you take?” when I bought my M10.
    I told them I didn’t buy it for any serious photo taking. I bought it as a necklace for men. LOL

  • Marty J

    Then you are paying for the mechanical experience alone, and less concerned
    about the final resulting image. Having legacy Leica lenses would make
    me consider this, but in the end it might make more sense to save $4,000
    bucks and then spend $100 to adapt all those lenses to a Sony full frame with a
    sensor that outperforms the Leica. I’m sure its a nice camera, but the performance is truly disappointing (from the Rolls Royce of cameras).

    • Flundberg

      Exactly, have been using the M9 for 5 years and tryied the Sony A7ii but i cant wrap my head around the 250or so difrent feauters. its makes me drawn away from shooting… Now Im selling the M9 and A7ii and are going for the M10. (and after that not reeding camera reviews insted shooting ;-))

      • That’s exactly what I like about the Leicas: No unnecessary features that are hard to understand and more for techies than for photographers.

We are hiring!