Sometimes, slow internet is the universe’s way of telling you to go play outside. Other times, it’s the universe’s cruel joke to destroy your productivity. Stranglehold Torrent Download. No Active Trackers Found. This list only shows (online) trackers that currently have seeds or peers sharing this torrent. Download Ted Nugent - Ted Nugent (1975) SACD-ISO+Flac 24-88.2 torrent or any other torrent from the Audio FLAC. Direct download via magnet link.

Although studying is considered a legitimate scientific nowadays, it is still a very young one. In the early 1970s, a psychologist named J.

Guilford was one of the first academic researchers who dared to conduct a study of creativity. One of Guilford’s most famous studies was the nine-dot puzzle. He challenged research subjects to connect all nine dots using just four straight lines without lifting their pencils from the page. Today many people are familiar with this puzzle and its solution. In the 1970s, however, very few were even aware of its existence, even though it had been around for almost a century.

If you have tried solving this puzzle, you can confirm that your first attempts usually involve sketching lines inside the imaginary square. The correct solution, however, requires you to draw lines that extend beyond the area defined by the dots.

At the first stages, all the participants in Guilford’s original study censored their own thinking by limiting the possible solutions to those within the imaginary square (even those who eventually solved the puzzle). Even though they weren’t instructed to restrain themselves from considering such a solution, they were unable to “see” the white space beyond the square’s boundaries. Only 20 percent managed to break out of the illusory confinement and continue their lines in the white space surrounding the dots. The symmetry, the beautiful simplicity of the solution, and the fact that 80 percent of the participants were effectively blinded by the boundaries of the square led Guilford and the readers of his books to leap to the sweeping conclusion that creativity requires you to go outside the box. The idea went viral (via 1970s-era media and word of mouth, of course). Overnight, it seemed that creativity gurus everywhere were teaching managers how to think outside the box.

Consultants in the 1970s and 1980s even used this puzzle when making sales pitches to prospective clients. Because the solution is, in hindsight, deceptively simple, clients tended to admit they should have thought of it themselves. Because they hadn’t, they were obviously not as creative or smart as they had previously thought, and needed to call in creative experts. Or so their consultants would have them believe.

The nine-dot puzzle and the phrase “thinking outside the box” became metaphors for creativity and spread like wildfire in, management, psychology, the creative arts, engineering, and personal improvement circles. There seemed to be no end to the insights that could be offered under the banner of thinking outside the box. Speakers, trainers, training program developers, organizational consultants, and university professors all had much to say about the vast benefits of outside-the-box thinking. It was an appealing and apparently convincing message. Indeed, the concept enjoyed such strong popularity and intuitive appeal that no one bothered to check the facts. No one, that is, before two different research —Clarke Burnham with Kenneth Davis, and Joseph Alba with Robert Weisberg—ran another experiment using the same puzzle but a different research procedure.

Both teams followed the same protocol of dividing participants into two groups. The first group was given the same instructions as the participants in Guilford’s experiment. The second group was told that the solution required the lines to be drawn outside the imaginary box bordering the dot array. In other words, the “trick” was revealed in advance. Would you like to guess the percentage of the participants in the second group who solved the puzzle correctly? Most people assume that 60 percent to 90 percent of the group given the clue would solve the puzzle easily. In fact, only a meager 25 percent did.

What’s more, in statistical terms, this 5 percent improvement over the subjects of Guilford’s original study is insignificant. In other words, the difference could easily be due to what statisticians call sampling error. Let’s look a little more closely at these surprising results. Solving this problem requires people to literally think outside the box. Yet participants’ performance was not improved even when they were given specific instructions to do so.

That is, direct and explicit instructions to think outside the box did not help. That this advice is useless when actually trying to solve a problem involving a real box should effectively have killed off the much widely disseminated—and therefore, much more dangerous—metaphor that out-of-the-box thinking spurs creativity. After all, with one simple yet brilliant experiment, researchers had proven that the conceptual link between thinking outside the box and creativity was a myth. Of course, in real life you won’t find boxes. But you will find numerous situations where a creative breakthrough is staring you in the face. They are much more common than you probably think.

*From Copyright 2014 Drew Boyd. There are many theories of creativity.

What the latest experiment proves is not that creativity lacks any association to thinking outside-the-box, but that such is not conditioned by acquired knowledge, i.e., environmental concerns. For example, there have been some theories such as those of Schopenhauer (see his remarks about Genius) and Freud (see his remarks about Sublimation) that propose creativity is something more like a capacity provided by nature rather than one acquired or learned from the environment. Rather than disproving the myth, in other words, the experiment might instead offer evidence that creativity is an ability that one is born with, or born lacking, hence why information from the environment didn't impact the results at all. It's an interesting experiment, but the author's conclusion cannot possibly follow from the results of it.

I conduct soft skills training and outbound training for Corporates and individuals. To enhance creativity we motivate the participants to approach the problems from variety of vantage points. Even repeatedly checking the boundary conditions we are able to come up with variety of ways of solving the problem.

This is akin to checking the walls of the box. Looking inside the box for additional information, additional resources also helps. Looking at the box from bird's eye view triggers some different creative solutions. Let us not get tied down to the mechanics but free ourselves to find the solution. I will give an example. You are playing football with family and friends at a distant ground and someone gets bruised badly.

No first aid kit is available. Your priority is to get the person to a hospital ( at a distance of 2 hours ). The wound is bleeding and needs to be kept clean and bacteria free till the person reaches the hospital. What will you do? Think of a solution.

It is quite close to you. With all due respect, Professor Boyd, your argument is not at all compelling. It seems that you are taking the 'thinking outside the box' (TOTB) metaphor much more literally than it is intended (or, at least, as I and may others infer). Let me point out a few false and/or negligent statements that you make: 1. To refer to TOTB as 'dangerous' is naive, at best. I, personally, have seen the positive, tranformative effects of not only the 9-dots exercise, but also the occasional use of the term to remind individuals after-the-fact about the value of thinking differently.

The experiment you refer to doesn't even come close to proving what you suggest that it does. To use the term 'proving' in an argument like this is laughable. In real life, you absolutely WILL find boxes.that is, if you understand what the term 'box' refers to. Here, the term is not literal; rather, it refers to a mindset, a perspective, a belief, or an assumption.

It is precisely how the human mind works. We all think in boxes all the time. The 'sin,' if you will, is not in thinking inside of a box.but the neglect to readily switch from one box to another, nimbly (see Alan Iny's new book, 'Thinking in New Boxes'). A different -- and very healthy, positive, and productive -- way to think about TOTB is to understand that it merely represents an insight that can remind an individual to consciously become aware of limiting assumptions. And, upon such awareness, to open ones mind and imagination to actively explore new possibilities beyond the obvious or initial answer.

If you don't regard this as valid contribution to creativity, then I suggest you consider spending a bit more time outside of that 'box' that you've presented here. I couldn't have said it any better. TOTB is a beautiful skill to have. We are born into multiple boxes that are created upon social agreements (e.g. Illustrated by the hermeneutic circle) but the ones who dare to think outside of what is considered as social or scientific correct (all the boxes together) are the minds whom are absolute free and open towards new moralities, paradigms, innovations and creativity in general. Saying that TOTB is a negative thing is a very conservative statement and someone who has such a belief is scared of change, scared of diversity and scared of anything that is abstract and out of order. I'm all about TOTB and the best way to TOTB is to fully understand the box in the first place and why some people are scared of TOTB hence also lacking the ability to do so.

Fold the paper so all the dots ovelap. Use four lines to connect four dots. Hold the folded paper up to the light.all dots connected; Thinking outside The Box.

For that matter, you could fold the paper until all the dots overlapped and you would not need to waste any pencil lead; Thinking outside The Box. Use a very wide pencil lead or charcoal block for that matter, connect all the dots in one fell swoop; Thinking outside The Box. Forego a pencil altogether and use a bucket of paint to create a huge blot over all the dots; Thinking outside The Box. Question the dots and why they need to be connected in the first place; Thinking outside The Box.

Erase the dots; they are a distraction to Thinking outside The Box. Create your own dots and lines in any fashion you desire; Thinking outside The Box. People that say, it's a misguided idea,, do not know how to think outside the box, I can look /listen/ at anything an tell you how to fix it. I play chess with my pc, an beat it all the time, and the reasoning is I do not think logically, like the pc does. It has a set of rules that it was programed with an you were in college, I do not play by the rules, I can play without the queen.Also when you go the a school that teaches how to think about something, that is all you know how to do.I have had engineers come to my deck, hand me a set of blueprints, because that was the way they were taught. They are never taught to look at it, in there mind to see it working.

What I do is show them how wrong they are, an ask them what tool in the world can cut a square hole inside the middle of two long tubes. They can not think outside the box, that they were taught to do. If was going to tell you about an airplane the TR-3B, it travels a little bit under light speed, an it uses nuclear fusion, which turns into plasma an powers the craft, that was built outside the box. An if you do not believe me type it into your search engine, you can also look it up at the library of congress under new patients. You my brother, do not have the inkling of understanding to think outside the box.

That's why you are a psychologist an nothing more.

My choice for Gear of the Year is a pricey camera with niche appeal. The Leica M10 is not a camera that many people are likely to buy, when compared to other major DSLRs and mirrorless products released in 2017. Leica knows that, and trust me – Leica is fine with it. The M10 probably isn't a camera that will suit the majority of photographers, either – even those with the funds required to purchase one. The M10 is a curious beast: a highly evolved throwback, which combines some very old technology with a modern 24MP full-frame sensor to offer a unique user experience with some unique quirks.

It's awkward, tricky to master, and lacks a lot of the bells and whistles common even in much cheaper competitors, but I love it all the same. I could have taken this picture with pretty well any camera. But I took it with the Leica M10, because that's what I had with me. (I didn't promise you an exciting story). There is a certain magic to Leica rangefinders, which is hard to properly explain.

A lot of their appeal comes down to the quality of construction, which is obvious the moment you pick one up. While other brands have thrown their efforts behind high-tech mass-production (with admittedly impressive results), Leica has never aspired to market saturation and still makes its M-series cameras in much the same way as it always has done; relying heavily on manual processes, and the accumulated years of experience of (with a little help from electronics suppliers in Asia and a facility in Portugal).

A lot of Leica rangefinders' appeal comes down to the quality of construction I've been pretty cynical about some of Leica's digital imaging products in the past (I still can't get excited about the TL-series, for instance, despite the considerable improvements that have been made to that system since its introduction) and I make no secret of it. In the days of hybrid autofocus and 4K video, the M10 is clearly an anachronism. The M10 and current 35mm F1.4 Asph., makes a powerful and unobtrusive combination. Many DSLRs and ILCs are technically more versatile, but few are as discreet while still offering a full-frame sensor. Ironically, the M10 has won a place in my heart (and my camera bag) precisely because it isn't trying too hard to be something that it isn't.

In contrast to the slightly bloated Typ. 240, the stills-only M10 is stripped back to the essentials. Presenting almost the same form-factor as the M6 TTL and M7, and an identical footprint to the original M3, the M10 is noticeably slimmer than previous digital M-series rangefinders while offering a simpler digital interface and tweaked image quality.

In fact, with the M10 I can comfortably shoot at ISO 12,800 and higher without worrying about banding, or any particular image quality gremlins. The sensor isn't quite up there with the best 24MP sensors on the market, but. It's been a long, strange year but as 2017 draws to a close, the M10 is probably the camera I've used most. While undoubtedly not as versatile as (say) a Nikon D850, the M10 does have the advantage of being considerably more convenient to travel with.

I still get a bit uncomfortable carrying what amounts to almost a year's rent around my neck I've done a lot of traveling this year, and the M10 has been with me almost everywhere I've gone. I love that I can fit a full-frame camera and lens outfit covering 28-90mm into a small Domke F6 shoulder bag without feeling like I'm going to pull my arm out of its socket. I still get a bit uncomfortable carrying what amounts to almost a year's rent around my neck, but – touch wood (or rather, hand-laquered wood soft shutter release) – nothing bad has happened yet. This started out as an attempt to quickly 'de-bling' a chrome M10 for my recent trip to the jungles of central Mexico. I might have got a bit carried away. Watch out for the 'Britton Special Edition Jungle M10' and remember – you saw it here first. Partly that's because I'm careful about who I point my camera at (and where I do it) but partly it's because a black M10 in a black half-case, accessorized with some carefully applied black electrical tape, doesn't actually draw much attention.

The eye-catching chrome version looks absolutely beautiful by comparison, but it's the kind of beautiful that makes me nervous. The whole process of taking someone's picture is less confrontational than it might be with a larger and louder camera I'm not a huge proponent of candid portraiture, but the subtle click of the M10's shutter means that even for casual snapshots of friends and family, the whole process of taking someone's picture is less confrontational than it might be with a larger and louder camera. The flip-side is that it's also harder to use. For all of the smug chin-stroking of whiskery old salts who cut their teeth on M3s and M2s back in the Good Old Days, the suggestion that M-series rangefinders are as functional – or as practical – as SLRs 'just as long as you know what you're doing' is nonsense. I still shoot film occasionally and I love it, but compared to a 24MP full-frame sensor, even the finest-grained film is a pretty low-resolution medium. I'm much more prepared to let minor focus errors or even camera-shake slide when I'm flipping through scans from my film cameras than I am when examining digital files at 100% in Lightroom. One of my favorite lenses on the M10 is actually one of the oldest that I own: the tiny 1950s-vintage Nikkor 2.8cm F3.5, attached via an LTM-M adapter.

At F4, the center is sharp enough for this kind of (slightly) off-center composition, with just enough out of focus blur fore and aft for some subject separation. Newer Leica and 3rd party 28mm lenses are unequivocally sharper, but they're also much bigger. This portrait was taken using Live View to ensure off-center sharpness using this vintage lens. The M10 can turn out excellent results, but truly accurate focusing and composition can be extremely challenging – even for those with long experience of shooting with rangefinders. Yes, there's always Live View, but on this point I tend to agree with the whiskery old salts: you don't buy a rangefinder to use Live View (which doesn't mean that I never do, because like every good whiskery old salt, I am also a hypocrite). Perversely though, its inherent trickiness is one of the reasons I enjoy shooting with the M10 so much. Compared to an auto-everything DSLR or mirrorless camera, it's very challenging.

When I capture an image that I really like, I appreciate it more because I feel like I've worked harder to get there. Leica M10 real-world samples Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our ). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples. Firstly I find it funny that M10 aficionados are the first to criticise the M240. The M240 is the same weight as the M10, only 3mm thicker, a longer battery life, video and better RF for wide angle. The M10 has of course a higher sensitivity sensor, an ISO wheel and wifi, however the M240 is a fantastic camera. In terms of Leica RF vs other brands, the advantages: 1. For FF, the smallest size kit.

Very small lenses. Nice to travel with 2. Much more beautiful / well made 3. Manual focus is second to none. I prefer MF to AF, especially for close urban shooting. Awesome lens collection from Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander. Fantastic pictures/kodachrome colour balance/analogue sharpness Better at this level is purely subjective.

You can buy an Orient Watch for £200, a Sinn for £2000 or Patek Philippe for £20000. They are all good but value is in the eye of the beholder. As for me, I suspect you are wrong. Even if I have $80K to spend on some photo gears, I would't buy Leica M10, just by your reason: the images aren't better. To say, if it could make a landscape frame with night moonlight stormy sea&coast at 1/2000s f16, without any visible noise and loss of details, I would have 'a fair amount of jealousy'! I agree with you: if somebody wants to spend $8K on M10, why not. As saying speaks: 'nice to live not forbid'.

But there are no any meaningful reasons for such public ultimate overstimation. This spring I purchased a used smart Fortwo cabriolet. When smart first came to Canada I test drove one because it was cool but the brakes were terrible and the shifting quirky.

Haters hated it, and fanatics loved it. The second generation is better, but being french it has it's quirks. It is unreliable, odd looking, and fragile. But drop the top on a nice sunny day and voila, instant smile on my face with the wind in my hair. Life is about what makes you happy, don't worry about what others think or do because one day it won't matter. (unknown member) I have read and take on board Omura's quotes etc, but this is not anything to do with the camera.

There are thousands of people who continue to delude themselves that 1. There is a Leica 'Look', and 2: that using a Leica somehow aids humanism in photography- your empathy and fellow feeling for your subjects. I have now been using DSLRs since 2008. Before I used a Sony R1(only 10MP, but the fastest camera prefocussed ever made). If you look at my work on any machine at all, there is NO difference, aside from file size and resolution, NONE. There are monochromes shot on Nikon Fs, Olympus OM2s, Leica M and Screw bodies, and colour on 1Ds Canon, Nikon D800 and Sony R1, and aside from their size and resolution limitations they are all indistinguishable. The degree of application and attention to what's in front of me has been greatly improved by being able to see it as the cameras lens does because I can see the result An RF VF sees small all in focus-not what you get at all.

Argh, so close yet so far away. I would suspect there are folks who think that a piece of gear will make them a better shooter, that is a given. I've been a photographer since 1969 when I purchased my first Canon FTb and have been using something that makes a photograph ever since. I will use whatever I have at hand whether it is a disposable, point and shoot, DSLR, view camera, medium format or Leica. It honestly makes no difference to me though as a photographer I will choose the tool best suited for the job, and perhaps that is what separates those you refer to as 'deluded' vs those who make photographs.

What is 'fastest camera prefocussed ever made'?? If you are talking about hyperfocal distance then any camera using this technique will be the 'fastest camera ever made' since it is set and forget. Discreet 3ds Max 6 Free Download there. If autofocus, the Nikon 1 is fastest. The point is, you like using what you have correct? Then why not let others like what they use and that is and always was my point. (unknown member) Sorry Kevin, but I didn't check out the Leicaphilia pages you referenced until now.

Not exactly objective, what?? More objectionable and blatant plugging Leica (with, wow, even Brad Pitt onboard ). You are forgetting very vital somethings as in, cough, polite pause, people used to use them, because THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE!!! (except the Contax and then Nikon and Canon copies!!) There were no pukka SLRS at all, let alone CSCs.

I made a point about the reactive speed of a prefocussed Sony DSC R1 because it certainly gets the decisive moment!! The last time I read an M digital review, the measured shutter lag was a disgraceful 1/15th of a second, rather than the R1's 125th. With a digital M, you'd miss every time!! (unknown member) Distracted, sorry, just remembering the day we took a dead Emporer Penguin from the London Zoo, carefully disguised, wrapped head to foot in newspaper and bound with a strap to the seat by the driver, all the way from Regents Park to Lincoln's Inn Fields to the Royal College of Surgeons for dissection. It was a very hot day, and the cabbie did not like the smell at all: but you can imagine the reaction when the vibration shook the newspaper off the Penguin's head, and there it was staring dead ahead!! We did get some funny looks, but eh, do you know, I did not take a single picture of it all!! Well, no King Pen Grin, I am a happily married house-wife from Cheam!

(unknown member) The difference between a delay in the shutter firing ( shutter lag) of a 125th second (0.007 m/sec) on a Sony R1, and a 15th second on a leica M, is that between a hit and a miss unfortunately. Unfortunately many cameras react very slowly to being asked to take a picture. 'Seeing what's coming' also known as anticipation is a philosophical position in thought: it is NOT the best method of capturing a photograph that even you Omura do not know exists yet. There is, however one such in my gallery made with a 3MP digicam, to let you see that SOMETIMES with a lot of luck, what you claim can be done (but this was after a number of attempts as I could only hear, but not see vehicles approaching from the left, blocked by the huge shrub blocking the light from my bedroom window. Here's some advice. You don't like it, don't buy one.

You like shooting with whatever you have?great. Stop hating on others, because they happen to like the way the Leica renders images. I have lots of cameras and I always go back to my M240. I go back to it, because I enjoy shooting it the most out of all my cameras.

So the one I enjoy shooting with is the one that I'll use the most and I'm getting the most out of it. I'm not delusional about the limitations of this camera, but name me another truly manual focus digital rangefinder on the market. I'll be waiting.

Also the battery life from Sony and Fujis are terrible. I don't shoot DSLRs because I don't like them. I don't like how big they are and I don't enjoy the shooting experience. The lag between your brain and your finger is likely greater especially for someone who is distracted or hasn't honed their skills as a photographer. Also this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of photography. I suspect next you will say that all photographs taken with a shutter speed of less then 1/60 of a second are no good.

I had suspected this lack of understanding with the profound lack of understanding of terminology used. Never did get a qualification as to what the comment, 'fastest camera prefocussed ever made' was about. Or is this your way of saying Impressionism isn't art because it doesn't depict the world in a realistic manner. Can't wait to see how you butcher 'the decisive moment' oh wait you have, perhaps if you do not have the skill set to anticipate when to push the shutter button you should continue to shoot in video mode and then pick the frame that finally worked. That would be the law of averages of photography in action.

(unknown member) I have not ever needed to use continuous, I never have done, because it does not work. I have never seen the point of the pray and spray guys who do this, because I can only just about, with great concentration of attention, and with the lens carefully prefocussed first, get what is there to see at exactly the important moments, but this may come from having to economize on the cost of film years ago-not waste shots. I myself love Leicas, where Leicajockey gets his 'hating on others' and Omura his torrent of abuse hating on me from, I have no idea. My contention based on a decade of experience with fast autofocus zoom machines is that they capture better what interests me most in a situation, as the two pics in My Gallery I mentioned OBVIOUSLY demonstrate. Either COULD have been made with a Leica IF the scenes could have been composed identically from the same viewpoint. In most cases they cannot be, due to the use on an M of a fixed focal length. (unknown member) Pt2.

The fixed focal length plays havoc with photography. When you see something about to occur from your position, or near it, in most cases a 24-85mm zoom foe reportage allows you to frame it as you choose from the optimum position, whereas a fixed prime makes you move to or away from the situation 'to get it all in'. Now however fast your relexes are, you have just lost control. Whilst you reposition yourself, you lose 1. The perspective relating the figures to the background and to each other, 2, the light that enhanced, in fact created the possibility that it might be worth taking a picture or two, and 3.

Ha, Ha an infinite number of 'decisive moments' that you lose faffing around desperately getting in a position to work because you have not got a zoom lens on your camera. Or, of course, ha, ha, you miserably having to change the lens for something that will get it all in or see far enough away.

( Idid this for a decade, so I know JUST how it feels!! (unknown member) But the worst aspect of the current M10 saga is that it is still only a 24 megapixel sensor. It should be 36MP by now, as noise control has improved way beyond a D800's 2012 performance, and I anyway only have problems outdoors in dreadful light-very common in the UK where they make it already an hour darker than it need be to photograph people in the daytime- also a cause of SAD, understandably. Yesterday at 16.30hrs outside in Wales it was an 1/8th at f2.2 underexposing plants by a stop at 800 iso. Hows the EV on that?

In the 'English Light' I have EVERY reason to go for the superb fast Leica lenses, on a good noise-free sensor. Every reason, since manual focussing in the gloaming is OK, if nobody moves! But the thing is that at low shutter speeds there is no advantage having a £4000 Summilux on your M10- not at an 1/8th/second!! Not at anything involving people and movement in front of you up to about a 250th without image stabilization. Mh: 'But the worst aspect of the current M10 saga is that it is still only a 24 megapixel sensor. It should be 36MP by now,' And then later you want better higher ISO performance. Can't shoot the D800 at ISO 12,800 realistically.

Yes, can shoot the D810 and D850 at ISO 12,800, but you'll need a good Zeiss lens to come close to the good Leica M lenses. And you can also shoot the M10 at ISO 12,800--DNG of course. Now how many mega pixels does the best high ISO stills camera available, the in Nov 2017, the D5, have?

How many mega pixels does the excellent for higher ISOs Sony A9 have, or the Nikon Df? Or the Canon 1DX II? (unknown member) Noise is a strange thing, it does not work like that. The virtue of a 36MP sensor is not just that its capable of higher resolution with an expensive lens and totally static subject, but that at lower magnifications it has less visually apparent noise. Personally I have not EVER used anything above 800 iso on purpose, on anything, not film either, because the noise creeps up very quickly beyond 400 iso, so we used to insist on f1.4 primes, if at all possible, or if darker, flash.

I know there are some F2 135 and 200mm lenses, but I dont shoot sports or wildlife in poor light you see, such that the figures you mention are weird to me, very!! I would wait till DXO Mark rates the sensor and check on its high iso limits, as, for example, you could compare the Canon 1D MkIV to the D800- the difference is well, huge. I personally doubt this 24MP M10 sensor is even designed to work properly at high ISO. Here they say no, its not too good in bad light,no. Mh: 'but that at lower magnifications it has less visually apparent noise.' That is a myth.

Downsampling does NOT reduce noise as an overall fraction of the data. 'Personally I have not EVER used anything above 800 iso on purpose, on anything, not film either, because the noise creeps up very quickly beyond 400 iso, so we used to insist on f1.4 primes.' Digital sensors are not film. DXO sensor scores are a joke. ' I personally doubt this 24MP M10 sensor is even designed to work properly at high ISO. Here they say no, its not too good in bad light,no.' All this says is you've not tried the M10, or SL.

It reads like you want to shoot at very low ISOs with good lenses, there's the Fuji GFX-50S for that, or Sigmas. Nor is the M10 a wildlife camera.

Golly, so many words Munro Harrap.anyway re your experience of never going above ISO 800, each to his/her own, I currently use a Nikon Df & D610 (only 16mp & 24mp, but you know what that's enough for me), I regularly capture images from ISO 6400 to ISO 12800 and I am generally very pleased (+ bit of tweaking) with the results. I admit the M10 may not be quite as good in low light as a Nikon Df but from the photos I have seen on Flickr, it seems to have very good at high ISO performance..and finally, if you are happy using zooms then good for you.I personally prefer small discreet primes and then zoom with my feet, but that's just me, Perhaps, the above exchanges between us all show the diversity of photography.and all available at price points to suit the pockets of budgets from high to low. We live in golden times.. (unknown member) Yes indeed, as far as choice goes, never better, except for film buffs who are, well, in need of basic materials and services in many parts of the world now. I gave up zooming with my feet AS A NECESSITY, I prefer the infinite choice of things a zoom gives you, but can understand those who imagine there is some precious cachet in using only one prime. But only because I used to be one of these people. Right now, I know someone, a published photographer who is still using film, only shoots in monochrome digitally as well, AND refuses to touch his digital files at all, letting either his partner or the agency do the necessary, and who regards me as a heretic, that bad!!

I have no such prejudices, merely trying to use my very real experience as a reportage photographer to explain to those not yet stuck in a rut gear-wise, that an AF zoom on a DSLR is best if you go for quality of composition and timing and variety of shot, and why. My dearest harrup, I don't hate you and in fact I don't 'hate' anyone since that is not in my nature. However you do appear to have some serious issues not the least of which is calling Leica users delusional or does this come from a darker place? Perhaps some but that was a pretty broad generalization and one I think you need to apologize for. In fact that on the surface felt like the opening salvo from someone trolling. A photographer was at a dinner party, the host comes up and says.

'You take lovely pictures what camera do you use?' The photographer being a bit put off mulls over a response and later on in the evening comes up to the host and says, 'that was a lovely dinner, what stove did you use'. And on many fronts that is why I think a lot of what you post is either misguided, misinformed or possibly a troll.

Going back to the comments about shutter lag, is that relevant to someone who photographs landscapes or portraits? Btw, you might want to re-read what Harvey said. (unknown member) Kevin, I posted full resolution images for you specifically in My Gallery, but have now removed them since you disliked what they revealed about timing so much!!

Who IS Harvey? As to what you have just written, where did I call Leica M users delusional?? Nowhere, and I have no idea what the lag on the M10 is, because nobody has yet thoroughly reviewed it, and usually only Imaging Resource bother with what is essential information for everyone. The A7R is as slow, dreadful.

Its sucessors are all much faster because Sony actually listened to us and did something about it. Leica do not listen, because they are manufacturing luxury goods for the wealthy.

Photography for them is no longer a concern related to photographers, see Pt 2. Landscapes change in a fraction of a second, faster than the eye, scanning as well as it can, can see, and of course portraits depend entirely on whether one has caught their humanity and spirit at the time. Photography is all about TIME. (unknown member) Pt.2.

Add the capital cost of replacing the 50mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 lenses I had to work with, and needed and the cost of 2 M10 bodies together with a 24mm f1.4. You are now in 2017, a wanna-be photojournalist, convinced by Kevin Omura and others on this site, that you must buy Leica as most Magnum photographers used them in the good old days. WHERE do you get the money to buy them? How do you afford even to insure them professionally?

You are not a wealthy amateur whose spare cash goes on his hobby in retirement; or a waged advertising or press photographer whose company foot the bill, you are in direct competition with all these other guys, and they maintain you MUST have something that will ruin you financially for years to come, but these same aficionados are not paying for your gear, no, you are. So Leica are producing at a price their original customer- someone like you- cannot possibly pay. Persuade me and then buy the machines and lenses for me, Kevin! Dear me Munro Harrap.your preaching again and knocking on doors that aren't really interested in your strict fundamentalist philosophy. Give it a rest for gawd's sake.what is it to you whether someone can or cannot afford a Leica.how do you know he can't, you've just presumed he can't.a most bizarre attitude!and for your comments on photography.may I suggest you stop digging the hole and perhaps you should see if anyone will be kind enough to give you a ladder to get out of it!

(unknown member) Are you Kevin? Was I addressing you? What is your real name? 'I was in Madurai, India in 2011 near a temple when I saw an overweight American with 2 Leica M(x)’s over his shoulders taking a picture with a third, of a beggar. When after about 15 minutes and dozens of shots the beggar raised his hand for a donation, the American replied “I don’t think so buddy!” No reflection on Leica but that moment stuck with me as an all time human low.

(I gave a donation FYI).' Quoted from another post. Munro Harrap.no I'm not Kevin, I'm not quite an old crusty but I did get my first proper camera, a Yashica Rangerfinder, back in 1973 when I was 14. Being a Radio 4aholic I've no need to listen to iPlayer as my yacht has a great 4G reception so although I'm over 2000 miles away from Blighty at the moment in sunny Barcelona, I'm able to listen to R4 live.and yes the 6.30 comedy spot for me is a always a stop and sit down moment, along with the Today programme, The World At One and The World Tonight.I'm a newsaholic as well. Being a King Penguin (and my first name is not Fuh, before you ask), I prefer to be swimming in the south Atlantic doing tricks for free fish for the Blue Planet team but the waters of the Mediterranean will do me for the time being. Oh my, harrap I never looked at your gallery because I did not see the relevance. If the 'point' you are really attempting to make is that specifications only play a small roll in the creation of a photograph then you have IMHO succeeded (likely by accident).

A photographer will always do their best work when they enjoy even love the piece of equipment they are using and that is the intangible that many seem to want to ignore when we get into a cost issue. Harvey was David Allen Harvey who you obviously didn't read because had you you would have noticed he shot the body of work he was talking about with a Leica and iPhone 4 but his point was the same as mine. I do however find it puzzling that being an 'artist' (bio, fake) you completely miss the point that inspiration is paramount to making a great piece of work. If you are not inspired then how can you possibly reach your full potential. For some it's a great guitar, others a fine brush or others a sublime camera.

(unknown member) Well, if you cannot be bothered to look at the two pictures I posted, what to say? Had you done so, you might not consider the bio fake!! It is not fake at all, none of it.

There is possibly Salgado, some might prefer Martin Parr, some Koudelka, but other than these, no. I however, record as best I can, the banal, the ordinary, the everyday, because I find us extraordinary as we are, free from war famine and riot. As I am an amateur now, I am in a position in which I have the same situation and position as most guys on Dpreview, with the solid background of press work from the time I used Leicas whenever possible, before the advent of autofocus.

The 3 photographers named dont use Leicas now, and nor do most people in Magnum: they have moved to something that does more effectively what Leicas used to do. Happily the advent of the EVF is a help (as the older VFs are inaccurate, very,) as the cameras own viewfinder is useless for most Leica lenses- inaccurate or too small. 'Well, if you cannot be bothered to look at the two pictures I posted, what to say' Not unlike you bothering to actually read the article I posted. In terms of what you posted to your gallery, the big question you fail to ask is, 'do I care?'

And to that I would answer nope, because again you continue to completely fail to miss my point though at this point I highly suspect it is because you are so self centred in your 'wisdom' that it totally has obscured your ability to see. Therefore I see no point in looking at something that is irrelevant as are the posts you continue to make. And sadly once you stop being able to see you have also stopped being a photographer which is sad indeed. I wish you well, and I hope that some day you will become happy with yourself again. (unknown member) When the articles and pictures you want me to read and look at are your own work, I'll be interested Kevin, but as that article was something I had read ages ago, and discarded, I had no need to fall for your distraction techniques. Let it be said here now, that if you read every reply ANYONE has made contradicting my posts and being generally nasty/superior, you will get in your sights a pretty fair cross-section of time-wasters like yourself, who for reasons unfathomable cross swords with their betters ( you see this in wildlife documentaries where the younger stronger cocksure animals try to drive off the silverback gorilla, or the old moose or somesuch- very common, sometimes successful, but not proof of anything Omura.

Think this sums it up nicely, 'Maybe it’s just me, but photographic aesthetics seem to have changed markedly since the inception of digital photography, to my mind for the worse. Optical characteristics have increasingly replaced emotional resonance as the criterion of a “good” photograph, the result of a repressive stranglehold of sharpness and resolution on the photographic imagination which is itself driven by the particular characteristics of digital capture.

Flusser would say that the camera has made use of the photographer, its intentions having triumphed over the potential intentions of the human, the result of the inevitable feedback loop between tool and user. I would add that, as far as creative possibilities are concerned, this is a step back rather than a step forward.' Full article here.

(unknown member) Its not the price, but the utility. Leica know its days are numbered and that their own autofocus and add on any lens 4K video Leica SL is just SO much BETTER and also £1000 cheaper!! (Chief competitor to Sony's A7R series) Dumb-dumbs buy Ms now, dont ya know!! Why do you think there are so many desperate people making a big fuss here: they are all finding out all that the M series lack. No variable dioptre correction. No autofocus. Inability to use long lenses without additional EVF.

Relatively noisy and only 24MP resolution sensors with bad rep for failing. Astronomically priced own-brand lenses, many unsuitable for the digital sensor, yawn, and now no video at all, at all, at all. And only £6300+ body only from Amazon now, with only 2 year EU guarantee. Dear me, you really have a bee in your bonnet don't you.some people, like me, don't care about video.I've owned many digital cameras from M43 to APSC and now FF and I've never, ever used the video facility in any of them.and my current DSLR doesn't even have that feature and I'm glad it doesn't.

Neither do I use any IS or OIS lenses or bodies, preferring to use nice compact discreet primes ranging from 16mm to 85mm. I don't do sports or birding so don't want or need anything longer and I find 95% of my photos are taken with my 20mm and 35mm lenses. Can't you just accept that not everyone wants the latest 'must have' gizmo 'spray and pray' toy and some people prefer to focus on the subject, the light and the composition..

(unknown member) Leica are well ahead of all your M blowhards, you see. They knew of your existence and continue to cater to your whims, with your urges to be today the kind of photographer I was 40 years ago! Do you think I find it EASY to resist the urge to go out and buy one?

It is HARD for me too, but years ago when my sight was good and film was everything, and I had a brace of Leica Ms with fast lenses, I learned their limitations. Even then, an OM1 or OM2 Olympus was SO much better at taking pictures, and adopted by oodles of former M devotees with Nikons, and devotees whose names you all know, because they just work better, and for split-image rangefinder fans you just pop in the appropriate screen. Why be M instead of Bond??

I suppose there are people who want a swiss army knife camera. I kind of have that in my phone which I find pretty decent. However if I want to shoot video I will shoot with a camera designed to shoot video. I don't even use the video features on my 5D II often because I do not find the feel and operation of the camera conducive to video except on a tripod. In terms of words of wisdom the only one's that make sense to me are, 'shoot with what makes you happy'. If shooting with a disposable camera or Dories does it then perfect, if it's a Deardorff and sheet film excellent. If it's a Sony (yuck) then great however every photographer will have their own methodology and requirements and the camera that works great for you may not be the camera that does the trick for someone else.

I've gone the route of adaptors and the one thing I find, most feel like a compromise design wise whether it is total loss of electronic control, or no longer syncing with the distance scale on the lens. Great piece, Barney, and entirely predictable whingeing from the souls that haunt these pages. 'Overpriced', 'Under-spec', whatever, #yawn. I think you expressed perfectly well why you like the M10 more than any other camera at the moment, and I have to agree with you.

One person asked, given a series of photos, could you tell which ones were taken by a Leica, and which not? Of course not, but that misses the point. Look at it this way: the time is currently 14:48 - now did I read that time from the face of a Rolex, or a Casio? Answer: it doesn't matter to you, but it might to me! But it's not as simple as just the technical aspects of an image and in photography it never has been. I think this is the point that many missed entirely.

There are many aspects to what makes a great or timeless image, many of which are not just about what the colour balance was or the dynamic range of the sensor. Sure those things are helpful but it's also about being able to access a situation and in many cases it's difficult to photograph when your camera is obtrusive. The Leica doesn't look intimidating and I suspect many folks not in tune to photography just figure it's another point and shoot which is a huge advantage when you are a street photographer. The other intangible is feel, the smoothness of how everything works together. Todays AF lenses have mainly plastic in them because brass is just too heavy a material for AF motors to push efficiently but for manual focus I want that smooth feel and not the loose feel of my Canons. Can't wait for part 2 maybe a Blad next time. The reaction on Leica from people on dpreview.com is predictable: price, price price.

I would not buy it, I hate it, how can somebody even consider such a camera. People buy Tesla cars or Masseratis for what ever reasons. Clearly thouse buyer descide not primarily from the spects to go from A to B. Any used Toyota for below 10.000€ will do and in the US you even do not have a change to drive 250km on a freeway.

We read 'My choice for Gear of the Year is a pricey camera with niche appeal.' As a first sentence.

If people would read that, most of the comments would not be typed in, and we would really could here some interesting thoughts. Sadly most to the comments are just a waste since people do not get the point and only cultivate their prejudice.

Kindly read my thread below. This article clearly mentioned that this was NOT a terrific camera, that it was actually underperforming in some aspects, yet the author liked it for that reason. Inaccurate autofocus, its tricky operation in certain areas, and its 'good enough' sensor all for the amazing price of $7995 listed ($6900 in the real-world, I heard) is what set people off. For the Maserati, at least you get performance for your buck.

Could the same be said for a Leica today? For the same money, people could get a very good body + lenses that affords better AF and 'better' sensor. Everyone is free to do whatever he wants with his money, but an overpriced product is still just that.

The thing is AF, dynamic range etc are not the only parameters that make a great photograph. And that is the intangible and perhaps a point that was not very clearly made in the article. In design school we learned form and function, or as my instructor pointed out the gestalt which is how all the elements work together to make the whole. Photography isn't just about the sensors, film or FPS but it's about a lot of other things such as how the camera feels in your hands. When I worked retail the first thing I always did was put a camera in a customers hands and ask them how it felt, did the controls fall in place easily, the lens feel good, eyepiece easy to see. If they didn't like something I would move on to another possible choice because as great as something looks on paper or in specs if it doesn't feel right you will never get the full potential from it. And that is the intangible that the folks hung up on price have missed entirely.

Well I wouldn't say accurate focusing is hard, it's different but lining up two images superimposed on each other is pretty straight forward even in low light. For those used to working with rangefinders focus can be fast and accurate, downside is you are not looking through the lens but then I only shoot with wide angle lenses so I always build in a bit of space around the edges to ensure I got everything in the frame I want. Actually Leica glass is better than much of the glass I have shot with, perhaps with the exception of Hasselblad and the Schneider lens on my Linhoff but the 35 summicron I typically shoot with is superior to the L glass on my Canon's.

At what point is DR and noise irrelevant? I guess where I'm going with this is at what point will we stop seeing these differences because the monitor or EVF cannot reproduce this range or material you print on? Also at what point does the image look too over processed by the technology? Especially at this price. Does it offer insane detail? Great noise control in low light?'

Non of what you listed matters to a purist 'photographer', a technician might care about nuts and bolts. Leica M and many other similar have never been about technology, it just captures the moment in the simplest form.

You want more go get without the fuss. I teach math, and I hate white boards, because right at the moment I need concentrate on spilling what is in my brain out on the board, I have to think whether I pick the black, blue or red marker, or maybe the marker is dried up and I have to hunt for a working one. Undoubtedly a fine camera, and who cares if it is voted camera of the year or not, although if it did it would probably spark quite a lively and dare I say acrimonious debate here on DPR.Please pardon my criticism, but sheesh Barney these images are singularly uninspiring and tells me very little of what one is suppose to be able to achieve with a camera like the M10.you know the stealthy street style stuff, razor thin bokeh, grainy high iso b&w images with high contrast etc etc.I can understand it becoming your fav camera over the year.

Testing testing so many cameras must be quite a intense and repetitive job so 'escaping 'to something 'simple' like the M10 must be quite appealing.hence my disappointment in the images, maybe I was expecting to see the creative inspiration that something like the M10 is supposed to unleash in a photographer. Merrill is good for anything that is studio. Its very poor with the lens it comes with to do realistic photography. Beyond ISo200 the camera is very poor in lights that is fairly enough.

But what the merrill produces is way more detailed and beautiful than any other camera i have used. Practically its impossible to take as a travel camera, professional shoots(except if its inside a studio with lots of lights) or even as a semi professional camera. On the other hand, we just finished a whole wedding with M10, Nocti and 75 Lux with no flash and natural light and images speak of itself. Absolutely brilliant camera to use and gives you the experience that is worth the money IMHO. Can i afford it, i cant. I wont buy the m10 at 6000. If the brand wasn't mentioned at all in this article, you'd think this was a very average camera.

From the article: -truly accurate focusing and composition can be extremely challenging – even for those with long experience of shooting with rangefinders. -The sensor isn't quite up there with the best 24MP sensors on the market, but it's more than good enough. -The flip-side is that it's also harder to use. (referring to operation of camera) The only true positive I got from the article was 'it's small and discreet,' which could easily be handled by a Fuji T-X20 or similar, they're just not full frame. All the above for $7995? (unknown member) And there are other things. The first applies to all metal bodies- your fingers freeze and stick to them without gloves in winter.

The pair I saw yesterday did not even bother to use those very useful soft-release buttons that are SO good in cold weather. (yes, I met 2 Leica M10 owners, for real. I did not fall into a swoon- it was too dark for them to work. So I left and carried on with my D800).

Theres still not enough eye-relief, and there is still no built-in dioptre adjustment. The add-on correction lenses are £100 plus each, but are fixed. So different users (partners etc) are stuck, and as your sight changes with age (N.B the Leitz 50 year recycling logo on the base!) you'll need to repurchase and repurchase. Leitz should be capable of providing suitable in-built correction that is adjustable. & The new lenses depth of field scales are way too close together to make setting hyperfocal distances very easy (old manual Nikkors are better.). (unknown member) The 50 year logo is, in addition an unproveable claim, suggesting that the electronics and sensor will survive so long without the sensor corrosion (due to RoHS) that plagued recent models Leitz broke their replacement promises about, according to the many very unhappy users in forums here and elsewhere. I await a full review on Imaging Resource because they test shutter lag (1/15th on the last they measured-disgusting slow-like the first A7R).

But Leitz have made no claims for shutter duration, and these are not the traditional tried and tested focal plane shutters that go to a 1000th sec. They are vertical metal-blind shutters that go to a 4000th. (unknown member) I have NO idea what EV2 is, and care less, but my Nikon can always focus fine in any light, UNLESS I use a low ISO and the sort of slow zoom lenses wildlife and sports photographers tend to go for. If you use an F2 or f1.4 prime on a Nikon its AS good and AS sharp as a Leitz equivalent. The 35mm f1.8G Nikkor (full-frame version) is easily as sharp and contrasty as the 35mm Summicron. In fact it is a LOT sharper.

It is as sharp as the Asph. Summilux 35mm, but costs £400 not £4000, and is on a body whose lag and reaction times are as good as an M10, I believe. Of course nowhere near as good as a Sony R1 (0.007 sec.), but hey, that was some camera!

EV2 is extremely low light, even for AF that is on paper rated to EV0, -1, etc. I find it much more reliable and easy to use RF in this kind of light which is often moonlight at this point. It’s not an issue of knowing how to focus, it is an issue of AF needing a far more contrasty object to get a read on than what one can achieve in light levels that low with a bright RF patch. This is simply not even up for debate man, in my 30+ career I have been on beta test teams of camera makers on and off for years. Even my D850 can struggle in that low of light when using my M10’s RF patch allows me to nail focus on some pretty unorthodox things. Edited to add to the post above.

You can not seriously know what you are taking about if you don’t even know that EV stands for Exposure Value. What a complete waste of time and energy. (unknown member) EV is an absolute, but that absolute is modified by aperture shutter speed and aperture, such that in practice it is different for each camera/ lens/ sensor combination.

So, thats why I dont know what it is. When A Nikon DSLR cannot autofocus it focusses manually with a nice spot that lights up, and when you are an old git with cataracts this works better than two superimposable rectangles dependant on enough available light to be visible let alone useable on a machine that has no inbuilt eyesight dioptre correction. This does not apply to those readers whose eyesight is excellent and who do not need the £100+ screw in dioptre correction lenses Leitz should pack for free in the box, because for many they are an absolute necessity. Please do not send me any more of your extremely bad-tempered private messages, ta.

Barney, you have a privilege to get your hands on just about any cameras on the market so you know from your personal experiences, what camera feels right for you. You're exposed to many modern cameras with high tech so a camera like Leica M10 probably gives you a fresh air. ' but truly accurate focusing and composition can be extremely challenging – even for those with long experience of shooting with rangefinders'. This IS the area where I can't live with. I don't care much about the quality of construction, but if I can't do focusing and composition easily with this camera, it's just not for me. So keeper rate isn't good?

But if it works for you regardless of the camera's price,then it's your camera to have. But for most of us, balance between the price and the camera's functions and quality matters most and this is are area where a camera like Leica M 10 disappears from the radar.

But if you love something or someone, you don't care what other people say. I'm happy for you.

This is the part I don’t agree with in the claims he makes. I find my keeper rate when shooting with my 35mm 1.4 on my M10 is very high because of the consistency of rangefinder focusing.

Perhaps he needs more experience with it, like shooting months of documentary type work or the like in order to master the focus and re-compose dance that one will do over time. That is the thing here, I use the same focus techniques on my 62 year old M3 as I do my two month old M10 and get very consistent results. Any tool needs to be mastered and the thousands of brilliant images made over the decades with Leica cameras shows it can be done and is done. (unknown member) Yes, I have a great time with rangfinder focussing too, whenever I use my tiny exact Olympus 35ED or the bigger faster 35SP, just as I did with my Leica M2 and M3 with their super f1.4 and f1.2 lenses.

With static subjects like musicians and conductors or folk at conferences they are discreet quiet and ideal. I even photographed W.H.Auden years ago by merely the light illuminating the desktop for the book he was reading from with a borrowed 90mm f2, but you cannot use an RF machine with subjects that are close to you and moving towards you or away from you. Yes, you can focus on an imaginary line and prefocussed at full aperture wait for your subject to cross it, but then YOU have NO choice in results!!! If the lines on the ground your subject had better be short because if tall, Hypotenuse saith, that the face 1.7m above the line will be utterly out of focus!!! Cost of camera irrelevant!! To be sure you need autofocus and face recognition.

(unknown member) I am 69, I used M2, M3 and M4P machines for over a decade with Summilux lenses, and with fast Canon lenses too. But I then had good eyesight, did not wear glasses etc. Then no cameras had eyesight correction (possibly the OM4 was the first?) VF depends on your eyesight being good enough. Mine is lousy now without glasses.

I tried the tiny M10 VF yesterday. Its OK, but you miss the points made here. In low light with a fast lens there is no depth of field. People approaching you cannot be focussed upon at all accurately as they can, and are with the same speed lens on a DSLR. Thus you are stuck with people who are stationary enough. But NO action photography at all is sucessful in poor light using an RF Leica.

Use an AF Leica instead!! The way I use Leica at an event like this is everything from finish area reaction to the lowest of light in the ski wax rooms and after parties. What instinct based trap focusing is about is knowing instinctually just how much to pull the focus ring if someone or something moves. It is in no way a replacement for AF, especially that of a camera like my Nikon D850 but it does make any manual focus situation more versatile than non-moving objects. So I have to ask.in your opening statement, what was to be gleaned from telling everyone what they already know and that is the best hammer for the job of pounding nails is not a screwdriver but a hammer. It just seems like yet another criticism of an otherwise stellar system that has decades of amazing images to back it up.

(unknown member) Sure, as long as there's sufficient light we can work, but that's years of practice and good eyesight. I MUCH prefer framing with a rangefinder instead of tunnel vision, much, no contest. The thing is there are loads of people who given its a nice piece of kit will be tempted, and then after purchase, when its too late and they realise that a D850 or equivalent is of far greater and more comprehensive application, and easier to use and to LOOK with, they will have lost thousands of pounds being swayed by arguments made here. I refuse to be the cause of quite unecessary unhappiness and financial hardship, sorry. (unknown member) A new 35mm f1.4 Summilux in the UK is a little less than £4000.

A new M10 is around £5850 (much more on Amazon). There's no guarantee on its life or shutter actuations. Its new and Leitz have NOT kept their promise to replace all their faulty sensors in recent models.The 50 year claim IF Leitz adhere to RoHS lead-free etc limitations is a fiction, and their circuits have failed on many recent machines sold at a similar price in the past few years-lots of them.

More than Nikon or Canon, who sell many many more machines. Were Leitz to offer me two bodies with a 24 f1.4 mm and a 35 f1.4mm, as a gift, that would be just lovely and I would use them exhaustively as I said and they could use my pics to advertize the brand. But were it an 'either the machines with lenses OR the money instead,' I would take the money instead, because I would otherwise expect to fail a psychiatric assessment. 'A lot of Leica rangefinders' appeal comes down to the quality of construction.' There is no such appeal but myth. Leica cameras are not better constructed than high-end DSLM cameras, say from Fujifilm or Olympus. On the contrary, they are occasionally riddled with issues and design flaws.

Leica has demonstrably poor know-how in the digital age, yes! 'The whole process of taking someone's picture is less confrontational than it might be with a larger and louder camera.' Is Barnes living in past decades or something? The vast majority of DSLM cameras today are smaller and lighter, thus less intrusive, than Leica bricks, and - because they have AF - take photos much faster thus the subject feels for much less time being under the spotlight. @RStyga: No question that Leica has had problems with the digital M cameras though that era seems to be behind it.

But as for size, lets compare 'full frame' cameras. The M10 weighs the same as the Sony a9 and a7rIII, and if we include lenses, then.

The Sony 50mm f1.4 is gigantic while the Summilux is tiny in comparison. And no matter how light and small a camera is, without a lens it is, well, a cosmetic addition to your desk. I've used rangefinder cameras and know using them quickly and accurately is possible with practice. And as an owner of an Sony a6500, I've learned to be careful with auto focus when light levels drop. AF can be good but it is not perfect. And as for the cost, well, who are we all to dictate how someone should spend their money. @ mandophoto No, let's not compare with FF, let's compare with cameras.

Leica is a brick, heavy without ergonomics, low/bug-tech, expensive, overrated, poorly designed & executed. @ Wild Light I'm sure you feel 'something' when you rotate the lens focus ring, as much as other photographers feel 'something' when they do similar tactile operations to lenses on their DSLM (Fujifilm, for instance). @ surelythisnameisfree Camera reliability, size, ergonomics, reported issues, etc etc are facts not a matter of belief or feel; these fluffy airy things are Leica followers 'attributes'. I appreciate b brittons musings about how leica helps one to slow down, to the advantage of the image, how the work involved and the commitment makes results favorable, more satisfying.

This is a great topic, I would have read it readily, at 4 time the length.Having said that, I don't think the camera of the year designation is cogent here. Given the sensor performance,the cost & the general difficulty of getting good results with the rangefinder focusing method. Especially for those who are newbies to the concept & commitment necessary, A better title would be the 'favorite camera I used this year & why' cameras of the year should be practical affairs that don't play into this idea of acquiring cultish obscenely expensive 'objects' which is what leica has become.. Continued: the days of the war correspondent or Frenchman genius streetshooters are decades behind us, a leica was simply a well made tool then,appropriate to the need.but that is finished and leica has morphed into a boutique camera.

Which is fine, but that's what happening now now leica could do the world a favor & produce a bare bones full frame 24mp body, solidly built, and completely made in Canada or portugal or Mississippi & sell it for about-something fair. Now if sony can sell a full frame digital autofocus bells and whistles 24mp body for 998.00. I dont see why leica cant do a non- af camera for $2000 $2500.

Stamping the back: made In Portugal Mississippi Canada Timbuktu they would not threaten the venerated german made panache they,& their customers treasure so That camera, if ever made would deserve camera of the year,for courage & sanity alone. Well said but a bit pointless. People made choices based on multiple standards. To some Leica has value beyond a camera. Let's just honor such needs. $6000 USD really is not that big of a deal in life.

It won't change anyone's life significantly. Maybe one probably just have to bring lunch to work for some time, or simply drink less alcohol. Today, a few piece of cloth could ask for several hundred bucks, I don't understand why people bash Leica for its price. At least Leica uses good material. Plastic lens (such as molded glass for asph element) are absent in Leica glass but universal in Japanese lens. Pay less for less.

Well a leica and a lens is about a 10 000 dollar commitment any way you slice it, this puts it beyond the reach of most people who do not need it in a professional capacity. In my life ive probably spent several times the cost of a m10 and lens.but it would pain me to shell out seven grand for a body that well does not produce files all that great compared to other ff cameras.

Especially meaasured agaainst its 24mp peers. Ive got a few rangefinders that i enjoy shooting and some leica lenses used adapted ony m43 and fuji but the money ive spent has given me lots of gear ovr multiple systems not a single body and lens that is so dear yes.point taken its is in fact gear, not camera of the year. But it stands as defacto,baneys camera of the year pt1. Gear,, in this context,is a camera. I did not bash leica at all.

In fact i call for a bit of sanity in pricing. Back in the day leica oprices were more sane in about 1960 here some sample prices: Leica M3 - $270 body only, $399 w/f/2.0 Summicron, $468 w/f/1.4 Summilux.adjusted for inflation $468 is about 3800 dollars. Not 11,671 you would pay after tax for an M10 and 50 summacron 1.4lens at b&H.. I stand behind my assertion that such camera are boutique items.

One can pay that and have a beautiful camera just as one can pay 200 dollars for a designer tee shirt that frankly should never cost more than 40 bucks. Well i got the gxr with 24-72 1 1.7 sized sensor module first for 549 at adorama some yrs back and the m mount module a year or 2 later for i think the same price or 599. I think it fair and not boutique pricing the list price of the gxr back in 2011 without lens [ or sensor lol] was 349 the list price of the m mount module was 649 aback then too i do love it. Haven't shot with it in over a year and this is making me nostalgic for it.

Also takes the same battery as the x100 series pairing it with the rokkor m 40mm f2 is sublime longish normal fov similar to the 57mm hexanon 1.2. When i bbought both they were in orig production not sure why yur saying it was 1200 dollars. I looked it up earlier as i couldnt remember. The body was 349 the m mount a12 module wass 649 thats a thousand bucks for both more with tax so i guess theat 1200 for the kit is pretty close ephotozine said this in 2011 'The Ricoh GXR plus Leica M module costs £250 for the GXR body and £549 for the Lecia M mount and sensor unit, making it £800 for a Leica M Mount digital camera. A real Leica M mount digital camera, such as the Leica M9 or M9-P, would cost you £4,689 / £5115 respectively and due to a full frame sensor have no crop factor. @cosinaphile, '.

Back in the day leica prices were more sane'. I, too, pondered this a little while back this year and decided to compare the price of an M3 at launch (1954) here in the UK, to the present day price. The first problem was which inflation factor should I use, currency inflation or wages inflation, i.e.

Purchasing power, and this is the one I felt more useful. Interestingly, on this basis, the present day Leicas are cheaper as a proportion of wages than the M3 was in 1954.

Of course, this result won't apply to the US where wages have been higher and goods less expensive than here. National economies over the period are an important factor.

If i had to choose id say id go with currency, simply because the costs of things across nations dates can be approximated. I can imagine the enjoyment of using such a well-crafted machine. Somewhat like driving around in a Ferrari.

But there are problems. Consider that the true quality of the M10 image will never be seen by anyone, except, well, you. Same as if you owned a chalk sketch by Michelangelo. Any attempt at photographic reproduction just can't come close to the texture of the original.

Images from the M10, served up lo-res on the web and then viewed on equally lo-res devices. There are disconnects here. But for the pure joy of ownership, great! And hooray for Leica. Jon404, I see no relevance between camera and car. You are not the first who made this kind of comparisons. Precise tools make work enjoyable.

It is simple as it is. I did not play with Leica so far, but I have a very good collection of old film cameras, and I tell you that $2000 Rolleiflex of 1950 - 54 (MX) delivers for each penny that you spend. You have to hold those beauty's, hear the sound of the shutter, see the precision of the focusing.

This creates a bounds between the camera and photographer. It is very tricky question and everybody should make his own decision.

Talking about pictures, I prefer out of camera pictures, because, converted images are too mainstream and they are missing the mood of the taken picture. This is especially pronounced in the evening/night shuts. The colors are great and image's appeal (if it's not converted) is very strong. Thank you very much for the blog.

Yes, the feeling of holding one of those old all-metal cameras. Your Rolleiflex, the Leicas, old Nikons. They were all so incredibly well made.

It is sad to see these old cameras now selling for next to nothing. But I guess I am typical. I couldn't go back to film. And there it us.

And so the value of the M10 is. That it lets you still enjoy that superlative machining of yesteryear, with digital internals. Would love to have one, but am not sure how much I would use it given the convenience and pocketability of my little Ricoh GR Ii, or the superb ergonomics of my Pentax K-5 IIs. And I'm not going to spend $10,000 to resolve this issue! It took a trip to Vietnam in 2012 for me to move away from Leica. I had an M3, M7, M 240 and M Monochrome. I also had some of their best lenses.

I bought into the brand and enjoyed using it a lot BUT when I needed to shoot in really low light, I discovered that all Leica's SUCK:( Even with a 50 and 35 Lux @ F1.4, the M was lucky if it could shoot above ISO 1600 without getting noisy. On the street, Leica's require hyper-focal focusing in order to get a shot, but paying $4500 for a 28mm Cron, that is at it's best wide-open, seemed a waste of money if shot @ F8. You have a slow, manual focus experience that is good for. Things that are standing still in good light. The 90 Cron is still one of my favorite rendering lenses, but it's a crippled system IMHO. I moved to Sony with an A7s and was blown away by its low light ability. As for Leica holding it's value second hand?

That's simply a myth, unless you are selling mint vintage pieces. EvilTed: The Sony A7S shoots lossy raws.

It's not an especially strong higher ISO body, albeit it's better than the Leica M10, though of course the Sony has many fewer mega pixels than the Leica M10. The Sony A7S II, which doesn't shoot lossy only raws, is bested for higher ISO shooting by the Nikon Df, Nikon D850, the D5, the Canon 5DIV, Canon 1DX, the Sony A9, and yes the Leica SL (with the later firmware). Or did you mean Sony A7s? The first version of the A7 is hugely problematic--only partly about lossy raws.

And the A7II really isn't a better higher ISO body than the Leica M10. 'I love that I can fit a full-frame camera and lens outfit covering 28-90mm into a small Domke F6 shoulder bag without feeling like I'm going to pull my arm out of its socket.' Leica M10 660g + 90/2.4 (346g) + 50/2.4 (190g) + 28/2.8 (175g) = 1371g + hoods (150g) = 1521g (all among the smallest of Leica lenses) Canon 5D2 + 24-105/4 = (765g + 670g) = 1435g Sony A7r3 + 24-105/4 = (657g + 663g) = 1320g Yes, the Leica lenses are a little faster, but the Canon Zoom has IS. Bulk is of course another issue, but then so is versatility. Oh yes, and the Canon with zoom fits in a Think Tank holster.

I love my Leica and its admittedly faster and heavier lenses than those listed above, but let's not pretend that the weight does not add up when one carries a small range of even the smallest of them. CGARRAD, if you want to see snobs bash brands other than Leica please do spend some time on the Leica User Forum. You find page after page after page of people who claim to have absolved themselves of heavier and inferior gear in favor of Leica, it’s actually quite bad over there. I for one find equal value in all the different gear I own that Leica is merely a small part of.

And the time that value proposition shifts is when I am looking for the best tool for a specific task. To bash my D850 when I am at the very moment using my M10 would be completly idiotic.and yet, this is what folks at LUF do. Take a look at my gear list, note how little Leica gear I have and how much other gear I have, especially the Nikon line that you also seem to own some of. What I am getting at is that these are tools and for a certain genre of work that I do that pays very well, I especially enjoy using a Leica M cameras and lenses over the other gear. And one of the best parts about that is the sheer lack of post production I have to endure from those images over ones from almost all the other equipment. When on a job in Chicago last February, I checked out the M10 in person and was very much taken by the refinements, It literally is the digital M many of us had always wished Leica would make. So you don’t have to get excited about it, but I think it is disrespectful and troll like provocation to just blurt out criticisms when a lot of people do love using these brilliantly designed and executed cameras and lenses and often do stellar work with them to boot.

When I used to ride bicycles a lot, when I was younger, there were two kinds of riders you typically ran into while riding: those who rode, and those who focused on their equipment. You can certainly do both, or neither, but being overly focused on your bike and having the latest frame, brakes, aero wheels, index shifted derailleur, titanium this and carbon fiber that - those guys were typically not strong riders and didn't ride very much. I have nothing against a Leica but marginal differences in resolution and sharpness aside, it's an aspirational object of desire rather than a tool. A good camera won't make a bad photographer's pictures better any more that a titanium bicycle will make a week rider faster or stronger. Photography is not about the camera.

“it's an aspirational object of desire rather than a tool.” Is this an opinion based on direct experience or like a lot of others on here being biased because of a mid-understanding how it actually does work as a tool? I own all my cameras for one reason only and that is how they as tools work for me to keep earning a great living.

If you look at my gear list, you will see that Leica cameras and lenses only make up a small percentage of it all. What Leica M cameras and lenses allow me to do they do very, very well. And I don’t at all see the point of trying to go on the cheap with a Sony camera when I get right to the point with the M10 and a few M mount lenses. I could make a list of least a dozen fantastic professional photographers who are using the Leica M10 to do great work with. But that would be a waste wouldn’t it because people here don’t really want to hear that.

Instead they want to keep believing what they believe because life is better that way. In reality it is quite definable. Leica rangefinders afford an unfussy fluency in use. They are fast and immediate for a particular kind of photographic situation - environmental portraiture and street photography - the viewfinder is always 'on' and always clear and bright.

They are also beautifully made with a very direct sense of control over basic exposure parameters (visible marks and scales on direct dials) and everything has immediate manual feedback, which after a time of use your hands just learn by feel. Getting used to a Leica takes a while, but then it is a very direct manual/tactile Haptic. Nothing at all wrong with Sony, they are very consistent in what they offer and will likely keep breaking new ground. But I hear just way too often that they are better than Leica because of price point and heavy emphasis on the innovation side. That is the only reason I brought them up, the idea that all of the sudden making the uber-diverse user base of photographic products fall in a line of uniformity based on tech specs alone. Nothing wrong with Sony, it’s just not at all my tool of choice for the genre of work I use Leica M in.

I haven't made this comment in a while but it's just an observation about how the people using expensive Leicas seem to always have one or two photos of a homeless or some down and out person. It just doesn't seem right. That said, a young man with his friend passed me on the street. He had a really nice looking black camera.

The bright as day red dot gave away what camera it was. Morphyre Personal Crack. All I kept thinking was 'man, you better hang onto that camera a little better than that, especially in this city.' The city has been known for brazen daylight robberies of people with camera gear. Uhh, Nathan, that is really sensitive statement 'people using expensive Leicas seem to always have one or two photos of a homeless or some down and out person. It just doesn't seem right.'

On our photography history class today we learned about W. Eugene Smith's socially sensitive photography, he used a Leica, as our teacher explained. The resolution of your statement is that, if you are a professional, no problem with using the best and most expensive tool for your job, be it documenting poverty.

Salgado mostly used Leica, too when he photographed poor people. My A9 is far as expensive as Barney's Leica, still I feel fine to photograph people who couldn't afford an A9, let alone a Leica.

I am not a pro, though, maybe I am wrong. Anyhow, your comments are really interesting and worth thinking about.

Personally I don't feel right photographing people that are down and out on their luck with expensive cameras. I know photographers do use their cameras to document those unfortunate people and I'm not going to say anything to prevent or stop them. I just make those observations, especially when people are giving examples of their expensive cameras by showing street scenes, which, more times than not show at least one homeless person. I have expensive equipment also and enjoy taking street scenes, but I try to take photos of just regular people. Different strokes for different folks.