The M10 or a new camera line? [Merged]

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...using an M is fundamentally different to using an SLR - with either an optical or electronic finder. This is an issue that has been covered again and again on this forum, and I can't help thinking that some of the people who want the rangefinder replaced with an EVF or similar would actually be happier with an SLR in the first place.

Agree. For many, a rangefinder is a small camera with a viewfinder on the left.

[bill]

I wouldn't say they know nothing, but using an M is fundamentally different to using an SLR - with either an optical or electronic finder. This is an issue that has been covered again and again on this forum, and I can't help thinking that some of the people who want the rangefinder replaced with an EVF or similar would actually be happier with an SLR in the first place.

 

+1

 

It is a sad truth that there are people in this World who want to change or just destroy what they do not understand - or cannot get on with. This low-grade, background intolerance to anything that they do not "get" fuels far too many heated debates around here.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

+1

 

It is a sad truth that there are people in this World who want to change or just destroy what they do not understand - or cannot get on with. This low-grade, background intolerance to anything that they do not "get" fuels far too many heated debates around here.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

I think Leica, and most others know the M sytem is the current foundation of the company. But Leica obviously wishes to expand or it wouldn't have offered the S2, the X1 and co-branded cameras. So adding an EVIL system would just be an extension of this plan.

[rosuna]

I wouldn't say they know nothing, but using an M is fundamentally different to using an SLR - with either an optical or electronic finder. This is an issue that has been covered again and again on this forum, and I can't help thinking that some of the people who want the rangefinder replaced with an EVF or similar would actually be happier with an SLR in the first place.

 

Yes, but this is an issue that has been covered again and again on this forum: M rangefinder cameras had clip-on optical viewfinders for wide angle lenses and multi-focal lenses for years; and googles for macro lenses. Live view and a clip-on EVF (not replacing the optical viewfinder and rangefinder) would replace all those expensive and limited optomechanical components.

 

If you are pointing to a different public for a pure EVF camera with AF and a rangefinder, then, yes, that is true. But if those cameras share the mount, many people will use the two systems.

[stunsworth]

M rangefinder cameras had clip-on optical viewfinders for wide angle lenses and multi-focal lenses for years; and googles for macro lenses. Live view and a clip-on EVF (not replacing the optical viewfinder and rangefinder) would replace all those expensive and limited optomechanical components.

 

But you are missing a very important point. One of the fundamental differences between an EVF and an optical viewfinder is that with the optical viewfinder - internal or external - the whole scene is in focus, with an SLR screen or an EVF that isn't the case. The world viewed though a rangefinder looks very, very, different to that represented on the flat plane of a ground glass screen or EVF.

[rosuna]

But you are missing a very important point. One of the fundamental differences between an EVF and an optical viewfinder is that with the optical viewfinder - internal or external - the whole scene is in focus, with an SLR screen or an EVF that isn't the case. The world viewed though a rangefinder looks very, very, different to that represented on the flat plane of a ground glass screen or EVF.

 

Yes but that is not a problem with wide angles, so the EVF would be a nice alternative to those superexpensive 18mm, 21mm, 24mm of frankenfinder optical viewfinders.

 

For macro lenses or very fast lenses (when you need very accurate focus) that "real DoF" effect is very practical. The point is to get accurate focus, so seeing the real dof helps.

 

I don't say this has to be an urgent improvement for M cameras. I am saying live view may have very practical applications even for a rangefinder camera. Digital technology has made accessible to any sort of cameras many features previously exclusive of reflex, or rangefinders or compact cameras. It is not bad, it doesn't erodes the classical look and feel of a M camera and it doesn't hurt. Leica has to consider this, and many other directions in which the next M camera may be better and more competitive (price, size, weight, reliability, durability, resistance, etc, etc.).

 

EVF cameras with AF lenses, etc., are a very different thing. I like Olympus/Panasonic approach (well, I am not a fan), but the new Sony NEX cameras are horrible in my opinion. So EVF/AF cameras may be interesting or not depending on how are designed and implemented. Are they a full-time alternative to classical rangefinder cameras? No, absolutely no. They are aimed to different applications and to a different public. Some interactions and synergies with the M system, if it is technically possible, would be a good idea though. The R system has to be considered too but... it is a dead system.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...One of the fundamental differences between an EVF and an optical viewfinder is that with the optical viewfinder - internal or external - the whole scene is in focus, with an SLR screen or an EVF that isn't the case. The world viewed though a rangefinder looks very, very, different to that represented on the flat plane of a ground glass screen or EVF.

Agree Steve but the point is not to replace the current rangefinder but to complement it with a clip-on EVF in lieu of optical viewfinders when we need so.

[nugat]

But you are missing a very important point. One of the fundamental differences between an EVF and an optical viewfinder is that with the optical viewfinder - internal or external - the whole scene is in focus, with an SLR screen or an EVF that isn't the case. The world viewed though a rangefinder looks very, very, different to that represented on the flat plane of a ground glass screen or EVF.

 

Unfortunately the above is false and the opposite is true.

Eye is just like a lens in that respect, the fovea can see sharp only one plane of focus at a time. Only when the scene is projected onto a screen (like LCD or EVF) the eye can see all in focus at once (provided the optical path has enough DOF).

[adan]

nugat - Steve said the view through an optical viewfinder is different from an EVF or SLR screen.

 

I don't see that he said either one was more - or less- like the eye.

[nugat]

Let me quote again:

 

"One of the fundamental differences between an EVF and an optical viewfinder is that with the optical viewfinder - internal or external - the whole scene is in focus, with an SLR screen or an EVF that isn't the case."

This is not so. With the optical viewfinder not preceded by a lens/diaphragm the eye's fovea has to focus on the chosen element/plane of the scene.You look closer-refocus, look further-refocus. You can try it without the finder. The eye constantly focuses on the objects in the scene when they are at a different focal distance. It works just like a lens.

When the scene is projected on a SLR or EVF screen (LCD) , the screen is for the eye at one single plane of focus. The eye does not have to refocus. Depending on the scene and aperture some or all elements are sharp. Preview of DOF is possible. With RF cameras and/or external VF not so. So much for previewing one of the most desired characterstics of a fast Leica glass--selective focus. Thank god for the screen on the back and the review function.

[stunsworth]

With the optical viewfinder not preceded by a lens/diaphragm the eye's fovea has to focus on the chosen element/plane of the scene.You look closer-refocus, look further-refocus. You can try it without the finder. The eye constantly focuses on the objects in the scene when they are at a different focal distance. It works just like a lens.

 

With respect I think you are missing the point I was making.

 

If I look through the viewfinder at something say 2 metres away and while looking at the viewfinder I see something 10 metres away I can focus on it without thinking - it's the way we all learn to see the world. I agree that the eye can only focus on one thing at a time but our brains are geared towards making that change of focus subconsciously. We don't think "There's something 10 metres away, I'll focus on that", we do it as a reflex without thinking.

 

With a wide open lens as used in an SLR - and to a slightly lesser extent with a stopped down lens on an EVF camera - we don't have that automatic reflex. We have to change the focus of the camera ourselves to see something that to be honest we may not have noticed in the first place because it's out of focus.

 

The rangefinder allows the eye to work in the same way as it would if it wasn't looking through a rangefinder at all. The SLR doesn't.

 

What you appear to be saying when you say "thank God for the screen on the back" and you mention DOF preview is that an SLR is a preferable mechanism for taking photographs. For many of us who use Ms that simply isn't the case. The viewfinder on an M is _precisely_ what appeals to us about the system.

[nugat]

" The viewfinder on an M is _precisely_ what appeals to us about the system."

 

That's clear enough.

Others prefer blondes.

[giordano]

Using an M is very different from using a SLR like this

Thornton Pickard Duplex Reflex (Early Camera Company)

but with these

Copyright © Motorrad-67

 

it's much the same: you pick up the camera, look through the eyepiece, faff round (or not) with focus and exposure, frame the shot and press the button with your right forefinger. The difference between M and SLR is important, but fundamental? hardly.

[stunsworth]

it's much the same: you pick up the camera, look through the eyepiece, faff round (or not) with focus and exposure, frame the shot and press the button with your right forefinger. The difference between M and SLR is important, but fundamental?

 

Important enough for many of us to prefer it to using an SLR. Maybe I'm unique, but when I used my first M I had a sense of liberation after many years of using SLRs. At this point in time I have no desire - none whatsoever - to replace my M with a digital SLR.

[Jerry_R]

Steve (stunsworth),

You direct discussion about EVF to SLRs world. Stop doing that. Why? It is very simple. SLRs are tens of ages BEHING what good EVF cameras offer today. And when peopel ask, talk - about EVFs - they want Leica to deliver what is best in class today.

 

And examples are Panasonic G1, GH1 and EVF for Olympus E-P2. Not SLRs.

 

Once again - let me repeat what was written several weeks AGO:

- I also agree, that M10 should remain rangefinder. Should not have EVF. BUT PLS, PLS - do not direct people asking for it - to SLRs! Directing them to SLR means total not-understanding of today cameras situation.

 

There are several people, who want small, light camera with lenses system. Full frame sensor. NONE SLR offer that today. Do you realize it?

 

World of MIRROS is becoming PAST. What people want - is full frame with EVF. MIRRORLESS. SMALL. LIGHT. For many (including me) - it doesn't even need to have AF! It could use existing "M" lenses!

 

Directing such needs to SLR is total misunderstanding of needs...

 

 

PS: You do NOT NEED to prove, that working with EVF is DIFFERENT, than with viewfinder of rangefinder. Both are better in some situations, worse in others.

So, pls - do not direct people with different than yours needs - to SLRs. They simply do not meet requirements. Small Leica with EVF and lenses system - could meet them perfectly. It does not need to be next M. It can be new line.

[stunsworth]

Steve (stunsworth),

You direct discussion about EVF to SLRs world. Stop doing that. Why? It is very simple. SLRs are tens of ages BEHING what good EVF cameras offer today.

 

_But_ the fundamental similarity between SLRs and EVF cameras is that they present a view to the user that is in one plane only. Whether that plane is shown on a ground glass screen in an SLR, or as a jerky image in an EVF, the principle is the same, it is the basic difference between and SLR/EVF and a rangefinder system.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that an EVF camera would be a bad move for Leica - they've introduced several already - what is being argued about is whether incorporating EVF into a Leica M10 would be a good idea given the compromises that would inevitably need to be introduced in such a system.

[Jerry_R]

_But_ the fundamental similarity between SLRs and EVF cameras is that they present a view to the user that is in one plane only. Whether that plane is shown on a ground glass screen in an SLR

In EVF you can observe with closed or opened aperture. At least both - Olympus and Panasonic. And when closed - it does not mean dark, as in SLR world. This is BIG difference.

 

With Olympus E-PL1 - which I had in hands yesterday - with attached Panasonic lens - all the time you see picture at about f/4 ort f/5.6 - which I personally do not like. It openes only for focusing and taking the shot (if aperture is set more opened).

 

But anyway - honestly speaking - I don't know anyone - who uses u43 systems and would complain on what you mention. Maybe the reason is bigger DOF than from full frame. Maybe. Anyway, for many purposes, you do not neet to see "everything in focus" all the time. For situations when you do - rangefinder is perfect, no doubts.

 

or as a jerky image in an EVF

I didn't see jerky image in G1, GH1 EVFs.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that an EVF camera would be a bad move for Leica - they've introduced several already - what is being argued about is whether incorporating EVF into a Leica M10 would be a good idea given the compromises that would inevitably need to be introduced in such a system.

Agree. In my opinion - new line would be perfect, with possibility of using "M" lenses, even if via dedicated adapter.

Possibility of magnification of selected part of frame for manual focusing - brilliant.

100% accuracy in framing - allowing you to compose exactly what you want - brilliant.

 

As said, it is for some photography type, not for all kinds of course.

[rosuna]

The key difference, for me, between a rangefinder and a reflex is the size.

 

More important than that are the manual focus lenses. I like the DoF scales and pre-focus technique (using wide angles for street shooting). You can do the same with a reflex, using Zeiss lenses, for instance, but the size of the body and lens is much larger in reflex systems.

 

EVIL cameras don't change the game for me. I would be happy with MF lenses and a EVIL camera, if those lenses are designed for the format. Zeiss may design and manufacture MF lenses for micro 4/3 cameras, for instance. This would be a good enough solution for me (even if I find the format too small). The same goes for a 24x36 mirrorless camera and M lenses or any other similar solution. Lenses for larger format adapted to a system with a smaller format don't work for me. It is too problematic with wide angles.

 

I would miss the viewfinder and rangefinder in particular circumstances, but I may adapt to a EVIL camera and MF lenses. I don't like AF (but most people like/need/want it).

 

Those are my particular preferences.

[rosuna]

 

I don't think anyone is saying that an EVF camera would be a bad move for Leica - they've introduced several already - what is being argued about is whether incorporating EVF into a Leica M10 would be a good idea given the compromises that would inevitably need to be introduced in such a system.

 

Where the "compromises" are if it is implemented as a clip-on accessory EVF?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[redbaron]

The issue we have here is one of credibility. If your name was Salgado or Nachtwey and you bothered to join in here your suggestions about the merits of certain features might be taken a bit more seriously.

 

As an example, for the hard of understanding; I've been driving cars for over twenty years now. I've had professional driver training and I've written technical articles for motoring magazines. Why on earth would I listen to the ill-informed demands of learner drivers? Again, if a respected, professional driver, such as Schumacher or Sainz were to suggest that the next model such-and-such really needed such-and-such feature, then maybe we could take the discussion a bit more seriously. But when a learner driver says the same thing, the only reaction from experienced drivers is; please learn to drive properly before demanding that our cars be modified to suit your needs.

 

Let's also consider Leica's decision making process. Does anyone think, for one second, that Leica will listen to the childish rantings of a bunch of amateurs? If we suppose that they actually need any help designing their cameras, who are they going to ask? The staff at Magnum, Black Star, AFP, National Geographic or a bunch of inexperienced amateurs?