Leica M9 vs Leica M10 vs Leica Q

Leica M9 vs Leica M10 vs Leica Q. 

What actually makes a good photograph? 

Instinctively - rather than thinking about it – I thought to find four words that described 'good' and 'not so good' photographs. (Thinking too hard hurts, is time consuming and is often wrong anyway). 

What sprang to my lazy mind were these:

Good: Impact, Emotion, Connectivity and Execution

Bad: Prescribed, Contrived, Posed and Cutesy. 

I'm not saying these four words are correct or definitive at all, just that they sprang to my mind. They are, I guess, just my personal bias. But what didn't spring to mind - at all - was the word camera.

Which I suppose is interesting since I've been considering chopping in my old M9 for the new svelte (and - cough - rather expensive at £5800 for body alone) M10. 

So it was that I dropped into Leica City Store at the Royal Exchange in the City of London and the assistant manager there, Ludivine Combe, very kindly let me play with their new toy. But very briefly. No scientific test this. Just a rough and ready hand-held couple of snaps shot in the shop, against the light with mixed lighting thrown into the mix. It's how I tend to work anyway. Fast, and usually in difficult and awkward situations. With my venerable 35 year old lens placed on each camera for consistency. 

The results were pretty much as expected. The new and bigger CMOS 24mp sensor (5976 x3984) was cleaner and with better detail than the old CCD 18mp ( 5212x3468) M9 version, obviously. The camera itself was slightly smaller, the viewfinder slightly bigger, the back LCD screen much, much better and there were less buttons on the back to press. However I think I would miss the M9's dedicated delete button. And I'm not enthralled by the fiddly ISO dial on top. On balance, I think I prefer the lines of the M9 though many would disagree. The bigger LCD screen is cool, but then I don't chimp that much anyway, so the rubbish M9 screen is adequate for my use. The shutter of the M10 is way better and more discrete. Big plus there.

And the Leica Q? Fixed, big lens wide-angle point and shoot. That huge look-at-me lens put me right off. No thanks. 

So much for the Q, what about image quality of the M's? Technically, no contest. M10 wins it. But does it...? This little test of mine was horrid for the poor old M9. On the other hand, the M10 was designed for this and should have excelled. And it did. I missed focus with the M9 and nailed it with the M10. (I purposely didn't spend time making sure I was in focus, just shot like I usually do with each camera). Shadow detail was far better and noise well controlled on the M10. And yet...

That noise, weirdly, from the M9 is aesthetically quite attractive. In monochrome that is. In colour it's just simply horrid. But I tend to shoot in mono a lot. The graininess/noise kinda reminds me of Tri-X film. And, in good light, the M9's CCD can give really great colour results. The M10's CMOS gives smooth digital cleanliness all day long. Which I find a little bland. Perfect, yes, but also a little plastic looking. 

Is it worth me stumping up £4 grand to upgrade? Frankly, no. I've tried the cheap alternatives too. The Fuji and Sony mirrorless cameras are all fantastic but for me they are overly complicated with their electronic viewfinders filled with distractions and readouts that remind me of shooting video rather than stills. I want to concentrate on the scene in front of me, not battle the camera's menu system. 

Which brings me back to to my opening thought. It should be obvious of course, but a camera in itself can never make a great or even good picture. It's the one in your hand that makes the difference. Whatever one you're comfortable with. It's the flea bitten mongrel dog that's far from perfect but it's still loyal and has an imperfect but big heart. Or in this case, for me at least, it's the one with the CCD.

My thanks to Ms Combe at the Leica Store City for her warm help.
https://leicastore-mayfair.co.uk/pages/visit-leica-city