marknorton Posted January 31, 2010 Share #121 Posted January 31, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Mark Norton finds the curent finder "dreary." I find it "dreary" only in the sense that Leica have seemingly failed to invest development time and effort to update the finder and so address some of what I perceive to be weaknesses. It's possible they don't see the need to use external finders for more than 1/3 of the lens range a weakness. They're clearly capable of producing a state of the art finder and have done so - by all accounts - in the S2 and I simply wish they would turn their attention to providing a better finder for the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 Hi marknorton, Take a look here M9: Thom Hogan on Luminous landscape.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bill Posted January 31, 2010 Share #122 Posted January 31, 2010 Bill points out the key attributes of the Leica M range/viewfinder but omits to mention the drawbacks which make it less than ideal. Mark, you are absolutely right - up to a point. I listed the benefits, not the attributes, as I see them (as they are for me) and I asked somebody - anybody - else to do the same for the alternative(s) being put forward. We are now another three pages or so gone, and nobody has yet done so. I was trying to get away from the subjective, albeit interesting, essays that people feel compelled to write in support of their personal positions, and get to a point where we have: 1. Benefits of the current system 2. Benefits of alternative system(s) ...to compare and contrast. The other point that is getting mangled here is that some appear to be giving their views (no pun intended ) about VIEWfinders, some about RANGEfinders, and some about both. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_w Posted January 31, 2010 Share #123 Posted January 31, 2010 Yes, it works the same way for classical music concerts <grin>. And for drinkers of fine scotch whiskey ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted January 31, 2010 Share #124 Posted January 31, 2010 It's possible they don't see the need to use external finders for more than 1/3 of the lens range a weakness. It is a problem. The system has to evolve, and versatility is one of the evolutive lines for it. More versatility, not compromising the strong points of the system in its classic form. Another problem is precision. The M system is a manual focus system with very fast lenses. Focus precision is very important. In the digital age focus errors are too evident. You don't need to print large copies to see them. Several lenses had focus problems (Summilux 35mm, Noctilux), but Leica is replacing them. Other focusing problems are due to the viewfinder/rangefinder: magnification and rangefinder base length. Electronic focus confirmation would be great on paper (but I don't know how this can be done for a Leica M camera... ), but a complete redesign of the viewfinder/rangefinder (now is basically the same for film and digital cameras) is a must. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 31, 2010 Share #125 Posted January 31, 2010 1. Benefits of the current system Pretty much as you described them a page or two back. 2. Benefits of alternative system(s) No one has listed these because no attractive alternative yet exists. I discount electronic finders and live view don't count as alternatives because they can't match the benefits of the current system - and may well never be able to. But here are some of the benefits that an improved range-viewfinder system might provide in addition to all the benefits of the current system: more precise framelines 1:1 view with lenses 50mm and longer without accessory magnifiers less need for external viewfinders easier viewing for eyeglass wearers when using wide lenses compensation for focus shift even more robust and precise (less likely to go out of adjustment after being dropped, no need to worry about whether a new lens will focus perfectly on one's existing body or vice versa). The other point that is getting mangled here is that some appear to be giving their views (no pun intended ) about VIEWfinders, some about RANGEfinders, and some about both. Inevitable, given that in the M design the two are inseparable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted January 31, 2010 Share #126 Posted January 31, 2010 Bill points out the key attributes of the Leica M range/viewfinder but omits to mention the drawbacks which make it less than ideal. It has a sweet spot around 35 - 50mm;.....Meanwhile, screw-in dioptres are required to correct eye-sight and the small eye-piece diameter makes the thing more difficult to use for eye glass wearers than a decent DSLR. There would be nothing to stop Leica offering an M camera with a traditional finder and a newly developed no-compromise finder... and accept (say) the compromise of a larger camera or at least one which looked somewhat different from the traditional M. That's why I would like Leica to develop a no-compromise finder which includes variable magnification, built-in diopters, improved eye-comfort and electronic framelines. Sadly, they have never put the development investment into this USP of the M and instead serve up the same dreary old vintage year after year. Those, in a nutshell, are my thoughts too. ................... Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vip Posted January 31, 2010 Share #127 Posted January 31, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Bill you are not offending me as your response was very kind. But please explain me way, in your opinion an attachable EVF ( that can be improved as technology change without disturbing the M taste) can be so horrible as your example. Digital offer so many opportunities that an RF can not use all. This is only option for people that does not like will not change nothing . On the other hand can fulfill wider wishes without offending anyone. So please explain me way. thanks Paolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted January 31, 2010 Share #128 Posted January 31, 2010 An article about focus accuracy... The Online Photographer: Focusing Follies (The Online Photographer, Ctein). . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted January 31, 2010 Share #129 Posted January 31, 2010 Back to the OP. One advantage of removing the color (Bayer filter) mask is that you get 3x more light (give or take a bit) per pixel, i.e. about 1.7 stops free of charge, and indeed a monochorme M9m should be cheaper as it does not have the filter:D The only problem is that you cannot use it to take color pics except via triple exposure and appropriate filters (not good for street photography "stop moving while I change my filters"). It won't happen, but the concept is fun: "I have just bought a new camera that only does B&W and cost $2000 more than the previous one (which was only $8000)" ....... eeek, WHACK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 1, 2010 Share #130 Posted February 1, 2010 An article about focus accuracy... The Online Photographer: Focusing Follies (The Online Photographer, Ctein). . Interesting BUT.... Strangely enough, quite a lot of the photos I take at f/1.2 and f/1.4 on both my Canons and Leicas are sharp where I want them to be:). Given all the fuss about focus accuracy and theoretical constraints, then either I am exceptionally lucky in my equipment OR all this fuss is about limitations which are not quite as bad as may be thought:eek:. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted February 1, 2010 Share #131 Posted February 1, 2010 Since when did pixel-peeping become the sine qua non of photography? I take photos to be looked at on a screen, in an album, or on a wall at a reasonable viewing distance. I don't dictate that distance, because our tastes vary, but I certainly don't take photos for me or anyone else to obsessively zoom up to 100% on a screen and tut over. I don't peep at pixels, full-stop. Pixels have a right to privacy, after all. I fail to see how focus confirmation technology will provide the desired "precision" with fast lenses. Good technique and a recent visit to the optician will improve your hit-rate far more than another technological (and psychological) crutch. Again, I think this argument is polarising along left-brain, right-brain lines. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted February 1, 2010 Share #132 Posted February 1, 2010 Bill you are not offending me as your response was very kind. But please explain me way, in your opinion an attachable EVF ( that can be improved as technology change without disturbing the M taste) can be so horrible as your example.Digital offer so many opportunities that an RF can not use all. This is only option for people that does not like will not change nothing . On the other hand can fulfill wider wishes without offending anyone. So please explain me way. thanks Paolo Hi Paolo, and thank you. I think we are approaching this from different ends of the spectrum, and my desire is for us to "speak the same language" so that we can compare like with like. You speak of an attachable (and upgradable) EVF and the "opportunities" of digital but I would like you - or anybody - to clearly spell out, in the same terms that I used, just what those "opportunties" (or benefits) are so that we can do that comparison. Bear in mind also that an attachable EVF will be invasive - it will require firmware changes, additional processing and hardware changes to the M body, not least a means of communication, be that via hotshoe contacts repurposed for the job, or an additional connector socket like the GF-1 that enables full exchange of data between the body and the viewfinder. An EVF would also require live-view, which in turn requires CMOS, and so on. All of this adds to cost and complexity. The resultant M that has all these facilities may as well not be an M. I have no problem with it being something else, but that something else will no longer be the camera I want and need. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vip Posted February 1, 2010 Share #133 Posted February 1, 2010 Thank you Bill! Is always useful to see something with the eyes of someone else. First of all let me list what , in my opinion , can be the advantages on an EVF: *Enlarge the possible use of an M with a wider choose of lens lenght *Obtaining on line information, in the viewfinder of focus, real depth of field ( not the one engraved on lens barrel as now with more advanced optic and sensor quality becomes obsolete) and exposition latitude *Have only one attachable viewfinde instead of many * Solve the cumbersome use of some lens as the beautiful 16-21 where you have to focus first, use the attachable viewfinder set on it the choosen focal lenght, the detected distance, frame and hopfuly shot if something has not change in between I fully understand your contra argoment and I agree with you to do not want to see these changes at a price of that leica has to trasform an M in a bulky, fat , heavy camera or reduce quality. But I think that the company has to see what is possible to be done at acceptable cost mantaining the M qualities. my best Paolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted February 1, 2010 Share #134 Posted February 1, 2010 An article about focus accuracy... The Online Photographer: Focusing Follies (The Online Photographer, Ctein). . Nice ideas, but there is nothing wrong with Leica M's focus accuracy. However there are limits with the current system, we have exhausted this subject, some are old and cannot focus like younger can, some are getting confused while trying to focus on tree foliage or when one can't find vertical lines or high contrasty surfaces. So there are limitations, which means that that thing can be improved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.