Should the M9 successor have a Hybrid Viewfinder

[Bob Andersson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

.

But if Leica embraced the hybrid technology wouldn't they do it better? I can't imagine them filling up the viewfinder with clutter by default though user customisation would be nice.

 

Bob.

[mn4367]

Personally I don't care for an electronic viewfinder, in fact I'm using rangefinders mostly because of the classical finder. For me it would be already sufficient if there was only one frameline per focal length and if the framelines would be more precise with regard to focus distance. If it is electronic or mechanical/optical is irrelevant for me. But I consider the lack of information displayed in the viewfinder to be a bigger problem. I'd like to be able to turn on/off at least the display of ISO, (correct/current) exposure speed and exposure correction via the menu. Each of them separately! I can see no reason (apart from manufacturing and parts costs) why the M9 is so restricted in this area. I'd also vote for a bigger diameter of the viewfinder entry.

[zlatkob]

It's filled with stuff what can we do? And most is useless information, about color temperature, or that right figure the 3025L. What is that L for what is that figure for?

In return I would ask for external and internal temperature, so I know what to wear, wind speed so I know what speed to chose and so on...

 

Zlatkob, you like it complex we get it, why don't you accept the rest that don't like it complex?

 

The "5200" color temperature is probably the white balance setting. The M9 has a white balance setting too, but you won't know what it is unless you press a button.

 

The "3025" is probably the frame counter. The M9 has a frame counter too, but you have to press a button to see it.

 

The "LF" is probably the Jpeg setting, i.e., "Large Fine". The M9 has a jpeg setting too, but you have to press a button to see it.

 

Professionals appreciate these features because they need to know that they've got the settings right and that they're not about to fill the card when a critical shot is coming up. And they need to know instantly, in darkened rooms and in bright sunlight and in moving vehicles, and sometimes on multiple cameras at the same time. Others can just wing it, and say "oops!" if they screw up the settings. But many photographers do appreciate having better access to information. And some have posted on this forum about their problem with forgetting the M9's exposure compensation setting (remember "dot below" in the viewfinder).

 

As for "liking complex" vs. "not liking complex" — I don't like complex. I like the simplicity of having instant access to essential information needed for photography. Pushing extra buttons to see basic setting is complex. Having to press THREE different buttons to check the ISO setting, the frame counter and the exposure compensation setting is complex (as they are all on different screens on the M9). So you see, in fact, that you really do like and prefer complex.

[mn4367]

Zlatkob, you like it complex we get it, why don't you accept the rest that don't like it complex?

 

Complex? Zlatkob voted for ISO, shutter speed and exposure compensation as I've understood his post. Apart from f-stop these are the most relevant and important settings, correct? I honestly respect the demand for an uncluttered viewfinder, but what's wrong with displaying this information in the viewfinder if every single info piece could be turned on/off via the menu? I really don't see a problem here.

[aymoon]

Here is the Fuji hybrid in action (scroll down for video and watch from 2:00 onwards): Fujifilm FinePix X100: toma de contacto

 

If it could work with the rangefinder still intact, I think it's a no brainer. All the info you want at the touch of a button, and none for when you just want a clear image and nothing else. Best of both worlds??

[diogenis]

Zlatkob, let's just not jump in the "professional" bandwagon so fast here. Leica made a choice since far back like 50 yrs back, about making a simple camera with the very basic functions accessible through knobs. They kept this principle and when digital came they didn't change their indeed amazing viewfinder.

Leica made this choice and its customers accepted it. Some (Canon, Nikon, Fuji) went another way. They value information over cluttered viewfinders, so they installed LCDs , pointers and all that. IT is your choice to go for this philosophy, what are you doing here?

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here is the Fuji hybrid in action (scroll down for video and watch from 2:00 onwards): Fujifilm FinePix X100: toma de contacto

 

If it could work with the rangefinder still intact, I think it's a no brainer. All the info you want at the touch of a button, and none for when you just want a clear image and nothing else. Best of both worlds??

 

It looks like a good step for Fuji, even still also a copycat of an M.

[zlatkob]

Leica made a choice since far back like 50 yrs back, about making a simple camera with the very basic functions accessible through knobs.

Your post sounds like "History has ended — just accept it!"

 

But the M9 is a new camera with a new technology — its recording media did not exist 50 years ago. The M9's successor will likewise be a new camera. 50-year-old choices don't govern every aspect of a new camera, not even the viewfinder.

 

Somehow, despite that simple-camera choice Leica made in 1954 (and earlier), a light meter entered the viewfinder at some point. And then big red electronic numbers made their way into the M viewfinder, along with Aperture-priority mode.

 

And then the M8 came along and it couldn't do anything without a battery! — that's not very consistent with the philosophy of 50 years ago. And the M9 offered a very good implementation of Auto-ISO — perhaps they should get rid of that to be more like 1954? Perhaps they should just get rid of the "clutter" of many ISO settings and just limit the camera to a few ISO's available in 1954?

 

Most of the back of the M9 shows design choices made in the 21st century, not the 20th. If 50(+)-year-old choices were locked in place by some philosophy, then the M9 would have no LCD and no buttons except the shutter release. And it would have a nice, simple frame counter on top. (Actually, the M9 would not exist.)

 

Like it or not, the M camera changes over time. It evolves. This is self-evident. A simple "basic functions" camera philosophy is wonderful. But there are many ways to express that philosophy. The $28 Holga is very simple, but far from ideal. The M9 if far better, but much less simple.

 

All of the button presses required just to check basic camera settings are not that simple and are not based on "Leica made a choice 50 years ago". They were decided by the current design team. That same design team could focus their attention on the viewfinder for the M9's successor and find room for improvement.

[Rick]

Professionals appreciate these features ...

 

Which professionals? Do you have statistics or some reference for this? You make sweeping statements about professionals and what they want all the time. How do you know? You talk to them about what they want in the viewfinder? How many do you talk to? What is your "n" ? Come on...

 

Can't you just say that you would like these features.

[Rick]

I love optics. It is part of my daily life. I find the rangefinder mechanism an elegant application of optical design. It is clear and bright, and a direct view; not a screen. I also, like to be able to use optical mechanical devices rather than computer electronics. In the optical path there is no substitution for good optics.

 

The current rangefinder can provide more precise focus than any AF, or manual focus with a LCD screen, or any focus assist. I am not convinced yet that the picture you see in the Fuji ad of their viewfinder image is going to be reality. Among other considerations, there is an LCD in the visual path. That screen, even when off, is not going to be black. It is going to be grey. And, may degrade the view through the viewfinder by decreasing contrast. I'm just not convinced it is going to be better than a purely optical solution.

 

On the issue of the display information, I really don't care or want all that information cluttering the viewfinder. I appreciate the simplicity of the current purely optical design. I can remember settings and don't want them anywhere in the view area. Dynamic information is different. For example, I like to see the auto shutter speed and the exposure information pointers. Likewise, the histogram information is dynamic and it would be useful to see. Great idea! These items describe what is changing in the scene and can't be memorized. Put them at the bottom of the display.

 

As hard as it might be for someone here to believe, I like the M9 more for what it doesn't have. Just, MHO.

[lars_bergquist]

Rick, there is no LCD "in the optical path" of the X100 finder. That finder has a beamsplitting prism, just like the M, and the LCD is mirrored in as an overlay, just as is the frameline mask of the M.

 

Or do you refer to residual light from the surface of a partially unlit LCD degrading the finder image? I simply cannot tell which, from your wording.

 

The old man from the Age of Neon

[diogenis]

Your post sounds like "History has ended — just accept it!"

 

But the M9 is a new camera with a new technology — its recording media did not exist 50 years ago. The M9's successor will likewise be a new camera. 50-year-old choices don't govern every aspect of a new camera, not even the viewfinder.

 

Somehow, despite that simple-camera choice Leica made in 1954 (and earlier), a light meter entered the viewfinder at some point. And then big red electronic numbers made their way into the M viewfinder, along with Aperture-priority mode.

 

And then the M8 came along and it couldn't do anything without a battery! — that's not very consistent with the philosophy of 50 years ago. And the M9 offered a very good implementation of Auto-ISO — perhaps they should get rid of that to be more like 1954? Perhaps they should just get rid of the "clutter" of many ISO settings and just limit the camera to a few ISO's available in 1954?

 

Most of the back of the M9 shows design choices made in the 21st century, not the 20th. If 50(+)-year-old choices were locked in place by some philosophy, then the M9 would have no LCD and no buttons except the shutter release. And it would have a nice, simple frame counter on top. (Actually, the M9 would not exist.)

 

Like it or not, the M camera changes over time. It evolves. This is self-evident. A simple "basic functions" camera philosophy is wonderful. But there are many ways to express that philosophy. The $28 Holga is very simple, but far from ideal. The M9 if far better, but much less simple.

 

All of the button presses required just to check basic camera settings are not that simple and are not based on "Leica made a choice 50 years ago". They were decided by the current design team. That same design team could focus their attention on the viewfinder for the M9's successor and find room for improvement.

 

So what you try to suggest here is that advancements in technology has led us to battery dependance? And if batteries are dead and you dont have a spare one then your camera is dead too. Then how is this an advancement?

We are losing track again here. Let's just stick to the fact that some don't like their viewfinders cluttered with blinking lights, numbers as you try to frame the subject. And that also some do like to see that.. their choice as well.

[zlatkob]

Which professionals? You talk to them about what they want in the viewfinder?

 

I know quite a lot of professionals, many of whom follow & contribute to the same online forums. The subject of viewfinder quality and information is brought up from time to time, especially by those who wear eyeglasses. Occasionally they mention their problems & mistakes with various cameras, such as when they left the ISO too high, accidentally shot jpeg instead of raw, etc. No, I don't do surveys or keep statistics. Even in this forum, we've seen a number of requests for improvements to the viewfinder.

 

OK, no one likes when I mention "professionals" -- as if that's a bad word. But professionals tend to learn quite a lot about their gear; they have no choice. The tend to shoot a lot more, and under more pressure. Their gear is worn out faster and repaired more often. Their livelihood is at stake. Of course, they don't all agree about anything.

 

I am not convinced yet that the picture you see in the Fuji ad of their viewfinder image is going to be reality. ... I'm just not convinced it is going to be better than a purely optical solution.

I am not convinced either! The concept looks good, but the reality may turn out bad for a number of reasons. We already know it will be rather small. If the camera is cheap, then the viewfinder will be cheap too.

 

Likewise, the histogram information is dynamic and it would be useful to see. Great idea! These items describe what is changing in the scene and can't be memorized. Put them at the bottom of the display.

 

Oh, there you go again, asking Leica to violate its principles and change the viewfinder! Don't you know that Leica made a choice 50 years ago to make a simple camera with a simple viewfinder and the customers have accepted this? There are plenty of cameras around with all those cluttering bells & whistles. Really, why are you here?

[diogenis]

But many of us here are asking -me included- for a small window that will overlay dynamic histogram. I have also asked for some focus verification to help older people with vision issues or help people to shoot faster ala canikon dSLR.

As for the viewfinder, even after 50 years of use and nothing can beat it.

[zlatkob]

You want a histogram and focus verification? OK, but that's not very simple.

[pico]

[... snip good article ...] And the shutter speed appears in big RED numbers, [...]

 

Red is probably chosen because the color does not disrupt day or dark vision. It would be nice if it dimmed automatically in darkness - or does it already?

[pico]

You want a histogram and focus verification? OK, but that's not very simple.

 

A histogram is no big deal, but it should have an on/off feature near the shutter release. Focus verification might not be necessary in a live-view (mirrorless) camera because one can turn on field magnification. See the new Leica (Panasonic) for that feature.

[Bob Andersson]

Hi folks,

 

I think the consensus is definitely to keep the viewfinder image clean so here's a thought. Should Leica include hybrid viewfinder technology then, by default, have the current uncluttered viewfinder but use the image field selector lever to allow quick selection/deselection of extra level(s) of shooting information. I'm sort of assuming here that the image field selector's current functionality would be a bit superfluous in the hybrid viewfinder scenario where the frame lines would be generated electronically by the LCD but I could be wrong. Often am.

 

Bob.

[Rick]

Rick, there is no LCD "in the optical path" of the X100 finder. That finder has a beamsplitting prism, just like the M, and the LCD is mirrored in as an overlay, just as is the frameline mask of the M.

 

Or do you refer to residual light from the surface of a partially unlit LCD degrading the finder image? I simply cannot tell which, from your wording.

 

The old man from the Age of Neon

 

Lars, the LCD has to be in the path or you wouldn't see it. It is brought into the optical path with a beam splitter. The optical path picks up the patch, the frame lines (or LCD, and the image. And, yes, I refer to the residual light from the surface of the partially lit LCD. Even when it is off it will not be black and it could degrade the finder image. Let's just say that I want to see it first. Maybe it will be inconsequential.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jrc]

The current rangefinder can provide more precise focus than any AF, or manual focus with a LCD screen, or any focus assist.

 

I think this is not correct, at least for most people. For most, a good autofocus can pick up a higher percentage of in-focus shots in almost all situations, and especially in fast-moving ones.

 

However, I would also like to to keep the M viewfinder as clean as possible, and though I've shot (and continue to shoot) DSLRs that provide a lot of information in the viewfinder, I rarely look at it...I don't wander around with a camera in front of my eye, reading. If I need to check something, I can look down at the screen on the back. If there was a decent way to have an instant-on/off histogram in the viewfinder, that would be okay.

 

The one reason I didn't buy an M9, and won't buy an M10 if it doesn't have it, is the lack of a focus confirmation LED. As JAAPV says, all it needs to do is (somehow) check the prism and blip at max overlap. I think most people with aging eyes, who wish to continue using Leicas, would approve this. If there's a menu item to turn off the LED so it won't offend the purists, that would be okay too.

 

The Fuji X100 seems to me to be mostly a science experiment, and outside of a few enthusiasts, I doubt that it will find much of a market. If it had offered a three- or four-lens kit, or an M mount...then...maybe.

 

I think Leica has to modernize the M line, starting with the M10, with focus confirmation as a minimum requirement. There are two separate developments occurring now which eliminate the Leica form factor as a major consideration in camera purchases: the miniaturization of DSLRs if you want really good, bright viewfinders (see the new and quite small Nikon D7000 and the Pentax K5. Both are about as small as my somewhat-larger-than-average hands can deal with, based on handing the D3000, which has roughly the same form factor); and the continuing rapid development of large-sensor EVILs, if you want very small cameras with very high-quality output. Panasonic has announced a 16mp m4/3, giving it roughly the same resolution as an M9, and Olympus will be shortly behind. Olympus has also announced that it will no longer develop new full sized 4/3 lenses, to concentrate on m4/3 -- and Olympus lenses, even compared with Leicas, have a reputation as being not at all that shabby...

 

It's fine for some people to say, "I prefer this, or that, traditional feature" but the fact is, Leica needs a market, and the market has to be big enough to support several hundred well-paid technical people. They won't keep the market by refusing to modernize.

 

JC