cirke Posted May 23, 2014 Share #1 Posted May 23, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'll just say that I've always been doubtful that Leica would pursue a 28 Summilux, mostly for viewfinder-blockage reasons - and I have been proved both wrong and right. I hope that they get rid of RF limitations and produce lenses for EVF Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 Hi cirke, Take a look here RF vs EVF. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mmradman Posted May 23, 2014 Share #2 Posted May 23, 2014 I hope that they get rid of RF limitations and produce lenses for EVF And than they produce fitting EVF one day. As it is good old optical VF is hard to beat, despite all real and imaginary limitations. Maybe future EVF will have selectable ground glass or split prism view, optimised for type of lens and application. We know of movable and zoom-in focus patch in live view, I had mine on D700 from long time ago but that is a slow method to focus M or any other camera. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertJRB Posted May 23, 2014 Share #3 Posted May 23, 2014 I hope that they get rid of RF limitations and produce lenses for EVF So you want an sony... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted May 23, 2014 Author Share #4 Posted May 23, 2014 So you want an sony... when Sony has a complete system why not 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted May 23, 2014 Share #5 Posted May 23, 2014 I hope that they get rid of RF limitations and produce lenses for EVF I agree that the EVF is a way to get shots that show the exact framing. But, EVF focusing is not accurate by any stretch. The only place accurate EVF focusing of manual RF lenses seems to exist is on the internet in some reviewer's blogs. EVF focusing, for example, of the 90/4 macro is extremely inaccurate and slow. The goggles plus LV (for accurate framing) is still the best choice. (The adaptor is going to prove to be much inferior). The RF still remains he fastest and most accurate way to focus RF lenses (except maybe in low light). In what universe do you expect Leica to get rid of the superior RF, designed for RF lenses? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertJRB Posted May 23, 2014 Share #6 Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) when Sony has a complete system why not So why don't you ask sony to complete their system instead of asking leica to change theirs into some sort of sony? I really don't get why people who clearly don't want, suit or need a rangefinder system still buy into leica and than start asking them to change their system to their needs. Its like those people don't want others to have their own system. They want leica and if it doesn't suit them its leica which has to change. No matter how many people like the system as it is...... Edited May 23, 2014 by RobertJRB 18 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted May 24, 2014 Author Share #7 Posted May 24, 2014 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) EVF focusing is not accurate by any stretch. The only place accurate EVF focusing of manual RF lenses seems to exist is on the internet in some reviewer's blogs.EVF with zoom x 10 is not accurate ?and you can perfectly focus with a Noctilux at 0.95 and 24 ... 36 mp ? I agree that EVF can be sometimes slower, but the actual EVF is not very good Edited May 24, 2014 by erick 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted May 24, 2014 Author Share #8 Posted May 24, 2014 (edited) So why don't you ask sony to complete their system instead of asking leica to change theirs into some sort of sony?.I have not to ask but just to wait I really don't get why people who clearly don't want, suit or need a rangefinder system still buy into leica and than start asking them to change their system to their needs..same answer than before ... just wait Its like those people don't want others to have their own system. They want leica and if it doesn't suit them its leica which has to change. No matter how many people like the system as it is......I dont want a Leica, if coca cola does what I need I shall buy Coca ColaI bought Leica for the size + lenses quality , never for the RF, the 55 mm Zeiss is very good but it weighs a kilo Edited May 24, 2014 by erick 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 24, 2014 Share #9 Posted May 24, 2014 I bought Leica for the size + lenses quality , never for the RF... Understandable, but the M (not Leica in general) is of course named for its RF, so the question is whether your needs are met with the M or through other Leica cameras that might use M and/or other Leica lenses. [The S lenses, however, are quite large, so a different philosophy applies.] I do expect Leica to make new lenses for the new M that take advantage of the EVF and LV, but these may well be tele/zoom/macro type lenses….many of which may not be petite. We shall see. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted May 24, 2014 Author Share #10 Posted May 24, 2014 Understandable, but the M (not Leica in general) is of course named for its RF, so the question is whether your needs are met with the M my needs are the same than a lot of people , a small and perfect 24x36 system , nothing very special I do expect Leica to make new lenses for the new M that take advantage of the EVF and LV, but these may well be tele/zoom/macro type lenses….many of which may not be petite. We shall see. they can be bigger , they will be in any case smaller than the Zeiss 55mm Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted May 24, 2014 Share #11 Posted May 24, 2014 (edited) EVF with zoom x 10 is not accurate ? No. The EVF with Leica LV 10x zoom is not an accurate way to focus. I do agree with you that the Leica EVF is not very good. But, a better view finder may not be the answer. I had the Sony A7r and the EVF was much better, but it actually focused worse than the Leica finder because of the way Sony implemented the focus peeking. It was so wide as to not be very accurate. I hope this will change as we go forward with newer designs of both hardware and software for EVF. But, for the time being, we are left with the more accurate RF for focusing RF lenses. I'm not sure if hi-tech is going to be the solution or the way forward for manual focus lenses. It seems hi-tech EVF hardware is moving in the direction to provide a super clear finder for consumers. Super clear is good, but manual focus lenses need more than a human using a super clear EVF. Manual focus lenses need more than that, they need vernier alignment! Edited May 24, 2014 by RickLeica Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted May 24, 2014 Author Share #12 Posted May 24, 2014 No. The EVF with Leica LV 10x zoom is not an accurate way to focus. if I focus with zoom x 10 my photos are focused exactly where I wantI agree that focus peaking is disappointing but the zoom works perfectly Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted May 24, 2014 Share #13 Posted May 24, 2014 if I focus with zoom x 10 my photos are focused exactly where I wantI agree that focus peaking is disappointing but the zoom works perfectly I guess this is where we are not the same. I can't seem to get perfect focus with the 10x zoom. I get better focus with the RF. Also, by the time I push the M240 front 10x zoom button, and try to focus, and then push the shutter, and then wait for the curtain to close... I might as well use the RF. Faster and more accurate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 24, 2014 Share #14 Posted May 24, 2014 The M240's EVF is outdated though. Judging by my Fuji X-E2, focus accuracy is not a problem with modern EVFs provided the subject doesn't move too fast and the scene is not too contrasty. M cameras remain faster to focus wide and standard lenses though since they don't need focus peaking or image magnification. FWIW (sorry for the OT). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted May 26, 2014 Author Share #15 Posted May 26, 2014 The key elements for a good experience with EVFs in the M are: 1, a good EVF (resolution, contrast, latency); 2, a powerful processor; and 3, a sensor with electronic shutter for faster operation in live view mode. and a good focus peaking there is a need for a faster 135mm , summicron will be great Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted May 26, 2014 Share #16 Posted May 26, 2014 and a good focus peaking there is a need for a faster 135mm , summicron will be great Looking at my Nikkor 135/2 DC ……… no thanks. At some point a Leica M is loosing the Leica M. I think we should keep the camera at what it's best … a Leica M. The current 135 APO-Telyt is absolutely what M lenses are about - highest possible performance in a well balanced compact and light package. I rather had a new Berg-Elmar in the shape of a newly developed, very compact 135/5.6 lens with 39mm filters, reversible bayonet lens hood (if using without saves additional bulk) than a hulking 135/2. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 26, 2014 Share #17 Posted May 26, 2014 Looking at my Nikkor 135/2 DC ……… no thanks. At some point a Leica M is loosing the Leica M. I think we should keep the camera at what it's best … a Leica M. The current 135 APO-Telyt is absolutely what M lenses are about - highest possible performance in a well balanced compact and light package. I rather had a new Berg-Elmar in the shape of a newly developed, very compact 135/5.6 lens with 39mm filters, reversible bayonet lens hood (if using without saves additional bulk) than a hulking 135/2. I agree : a heavy fast tele with M bayonet is out of the logic of the M concept... for such gear, one can always use adapters and, conscious of the limitations, attach any fast tele helikes (even a Summicron 180... ) Your idea about a compact 135 has a sense.... and personally I would appreciate even more something like a 180 5,6 or even 6,3... the RF of the M is so good that I'd even accept a goggled version with 2x enlargment (90 frame). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted May 26, 2014 Share #18 Posted May 26, 2014 The RF still remains he fastest and most accurate way to focus RF lenses (except maybe in low light). In what universe do you expect Leica to get rid of the superior RF, designed for RF lenses? Rick please, not again People who used RF for decades are convinced of the same. And considering how bad the EVF and firmware have been implemented on the M, many who haven't tried anything better will obviously agree. The fact is that the RF is old technology. It only works in the center of the frame, only if perfectly calibrated with the lens, and only if the subject is at the proper distance. As a matter of fact, a good EVF+firmware can magnify in realtime what the sensor actually captures near the focus point (set anywhere in the frame); it works with any lens, at any subject distance, in low light conditions, and as an added bonus gives you a real preview of framing and DoF. The bottom line is that the RF is fun to use and one may subjectively like it way better than AF or EVF. But technically it is NOT the fastest and more accurate way to focus a camera. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 26, 2014 Share #19 Posted May 26, 2014 Imho the "fastest and most accurate focusing" concept can not be generalized, simply... in some situations AF is such, in others can be EVF (or reflex)... and in others, yes, can be RF. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted May 26, 2014 Share #20 Posted May 26, 2014 Rick please, not again People who used RF for decades are convinced of the same. And considering how bad the EVF and firmware have been implemented on the M, many who haven't tried anything better will obviously agree. The fact is that the RF is old technology. It only works in the center of the frame, only if perfectly calibrated with the lens, and only if the subject is at the proper distance. As a matter of fact, a good EVF+firmware can magnify in realtime what the sensor actually captures near the focus point (set anywhere in the frame); it works with any lens, at any subject distance, in low light conditions, and as an added bonus gives you a real preview of framing and DoF. The bottom line is that the RF is fun to use and one may subjectively like it way better than AF or EVF. But technically it is NOT the fastest and more accurate way to focus a camera. I guess the converse is also true - if the camera and lens are properly calibrated, and the subject is in the centre of the image, and the photographer's eyesight is up to it (and a magnifier is used for focal lengths of 50 and longer), the RF is a joy to use. Unfortunately, its limitations are hit reasonably quickly, with errors in all the above and re-focussing for recomposition. Imagine if the optical viewfinder could be zoomed in to the focal length (at the photographer's option), and the focusing patch could be moved - how good would that be? I guess it would be technically tricky and very expensive - oh, hold on, it already is ... Much as I love AF when it works well, it also has limitations considerable - a good focussing screen, well made manual focussing ring and good eyesight still give the best results with AF. I'd love a good screen for my D800 as I still like to fine tune the focus if I can. For the M, the optical viewfinder is still the best option, it seems (I don't have the M(240)) - but state of the art, it isn't. Cheers John 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.