Leica M10. This time in color. By Dan Bar

Leica M10. This time in color.

By Dan Bar – See his last post here, with B&W images

Hello again

I went with my friend to East Jerusalem and found myself at the “Church of Holy sepulcher”, and in the” Russian orthodox church” with my new Leica M10 and the 50 Cron APO.
It was not my first visit to this beautiful holy church and yet as my friend Nir says: “You can always come back here and find new and interesting shots”. The church was full of believers who come from all over the world and I can understand why.  It is not the most beautiful church but one can feel the holiness of this place. One can find some beautiful light if you come at the right time. Later we also visited the Ethiopian church wich is attached to the holy sepulcher .
As for the Leica M10, I finally have a camera capable of shooting in low light conditions, it feels nice and balanced in the hand, it is extremely quite and very easy to operate.
I am not sure it is better than the Sonny A7-9 or the Fuji cameras as their capacities to function in low light are not new as for Leica M cameras but non the less it is the Leica M (with all its limits) that makes me go out and shoot with a smile.
All the  photos where shot in both churchs with the M10 + 50 APO at around 10 AM
Thank you Steve
Danny
Church of holy sepulcher

Related Post

Share This!

35 thoughts on “Leica M10. This time in color. By Dan Bar”

  1. Thanks for posting. I think the choice of going darker and not care that much for shadow detail achieve some truly special photos. First 3 are really beautifully, specially the third (which is also the article “headline picture wit the two girls) which really touched me with its pictorial quality.

    Having read previous posts, I guess people aim for different things in artistic endeavors. Some aim to provide a personal point of view, some aim to achieve what is considered by most others technical perfection (despite risking a personal view), some look for a more subjective look. Part of enjoying (or not) other people’s work seems to me to be able to understand other people’s aims or to appreciate things that you yourself is not able to achieve, be it for personal taste, or talent, or just because you see things from different perspectives, but can be intrigued, awed, or just provoked by what others can do. And this makes life and art richer and more interesting. The poster/photographer is clearly not looking for the same things as say David below. I’m just commenting because his “revolt” seemed a little perplexing (not to say impolite) to me. And clearly he uses some personal truths as if they were universal laws onto themselves.

  2. I am sure it was pretty murky light by the photos shown.
    Truthfully for all the “hoopla” about the 50mm APO lens,
    the dynamics of the M10, I am a kid at the Emperor’s New Clothes.
    Taken nicely, framing is always personal, but razor thin sharpness areas, strange out of focus, render a poor result.
    A photographer I admire on a Forum, recently posted BW image from a very early Leica and uncoated lens. His photo was ay ahead of digital images. I love digital, but still use Film, because of the quality and longevity.
    I am pleased we can see all these interesting images.
    In general I like them, but not at the price of acquisition.

  3. There is something odd going on with these images. The strangest being the one of the old lady with glasses on her chest. The OOF background is showing something i can’t put my finger on.

      1. wow. no, I mean oh my…
        So, I tremble lightly now: your photos, your editing, your memories, ok?

        But, for a system that expensive, these images look, ob boy, they look “strange”.

        They are super dark to a point where you feel there is important detail missing (like the older man holding the child). This lack of info is kind of stressful to watch. Like a bad dream, where you can’t see but want to…
        And the composition is not helping either, man sometimes it is composed like a bad snapshot.
        Throw in some motion blur and high ISO und you have a soft and unsharp and flat image.
        Then, the colors… people go crazy about their color preferences, I know. But the colors here are too muted and the high ISO produces terrible colors.

        On image 7, the highlights are blown but brought down in post that this image looks like something I get from my Ricoh GRD IV. Because of the editing, I guess your aesthetic impression is profoundly different than mine.

        I know critic is cheap and easy from my chair, but this gallery is nowhere near what a M10 with that lens can achieve.
        I’d strongly suggest to go and learn to use this fine camera more instead of posting dozens of not even mediocre images on the web (for what purpose anyway??)

        1. I looked through them once more.
          Maybe your monitor is not set up well and gives you a false impression, I don’t know.

        2. This may have been intended as constructive criticism, which is truly a gift. But might be better delivered with less direct attack on his approach and instead focused on how YOU handle similar situations, with lots of examples.

          I applaud anyone who shares images and experiences here, regardless of how it aligns to my own sensibilities. In fact, I often enjoy posts that show a completely different path. Do Ralph Gibson’s images disappoint by not illuminating every shadow? :)

          This reminds me of the classic photographer joke: How many photographers does it take to make an image? Answer: 100. 1 to make the image and 99 to say how they’d have done it better.

          1. I’m sure he did mean the turbulent bokeh. It is far from being creamy and for some that’s not to like.
            He could also mean the processing artefacts that you introduced?

            I don’t mind a harsher bokeh but are we talking about the same images? It seems like you didn’t even have a look at the pictures and batch processed them… :(

  4. Dan do you use the Visoflex or is the optical rangefinder sufficient for accurate focus? If the Visoflex is essential I would rather use a camera with a built-in EVF.
    Great photos, Philip.

  5. Very beautiful pictures indeed, Dan.
    What strikes me the most in your article is: “I am not sure it is better than the Sonny A7-9 or the Fuji cameras as their capacities to function in low light are not new as for Leica M cameras but non the less it is the Leica M (with all its limits) that makes me go out and shoot with a smile.”
    To read this after decades when Leica was concidered as by far the best is, to say the least, very remarcable. Still, Leica remains by far the most expensive, surely with the Apo Cron. But I can understand the unique feeling you get from shooting with it, although I get a very unique feeling as well from shooting with my A7Rii with some good MF glass on it, like a Zeiss Loxia or ZM.
    One thing is clear though: these pictures make me indeed remember the M9, because of a kind of “natural color Richard and warmth”.

    1. At the very end of my reply, the damned autocorrection changed “richness” into “Richard”!!?? Sorry for that.

    2. Hi again
      I took the Sony A7 form my friend and tried it for some time. Must say i never enjoyed it ( i owned the M9 at the time). As i said the M9 was far behind the other rivals but i loved it nontheless.
      Please read Thorsten new M10 article,
      Leica M are different cameras with a different VF and different thinking.
      I tried the SL and never liked it for the same reasons i did not like the Sonny :)

      1. Just a note, the Sony has come a LONG LONG way since the A7. At the same time, while something like the A9 is far superior to a Leica in almost EVERY single way technically, in use it is nothing like a Leica. When you pay for a Leica you pay for the style, beauty and entirely different user experience. It is a camera you can bond with and get attached to. The Sony A9 is amazing in speed, IQ, usability, auto focus capabilities, and IQ and lenses like the 50 1.4 Zeiss match or beat the 50 Summilux but you do not get that same joy of use or pride of ownership with a Sony like you do a Leica. Leica = Heartstrings and Magic. Sony = Technical Perfection but is a tad boring in comparison to an M. If my eyesight has not gotten so bad I would be shooting an M10. Shooting an M with glasses is not a joyful experience for me, so for me I prefer cameras like the SL, A9, etc today.

  6. Photos are just beautiful and sharp as could be. But I am so envious -the lens costs more than the camera i.e. $6895 for the M-10 and $7795 for the lens. WOW!

    1. For a $14’000, these image results are a slap to the head, honestly.
      The blown highlights and the overly HDR look in combination with the razor thin DOF produces the strangest pictures I have seen in a while. The skin colors here are so strange that I don’t get peoples comments on the beautiful colors…
      When I overprocess my Ricoh GRD IV or Nikon V1 files, I get similar artifacts but with more noise. And I picked both cameras up for $250 each! (not saying that they are generally better than a M10, but these images could have come from a GRD IV as well)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.