Should the M9 successor have a Hybrid Viewfinder

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Which market are we talking here again? They can't keep up with the demand with M9 and they need to change that? All these would be valid points if there were still M9 in stock.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[zlatkob]

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.

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.

Well said!

[zlatkob]

They can't keep up with the demand with M9 and they need to change that?

 

Just above you asked for a histogram and focus verification in the viewfinder, and now you're against change again?

[jrc]

Which market are we talking here again? They can't keep up with the demand with M9 and they need to change that? All these would be valid points if there were still M9 in stock.

 

They can't keep up not because of overwhelming demand, but because they are a marginal company with a small manufacturing workforce. If Canon were producing the M9, there would have been in-stock cameras after the first week. (And Popflash Photo, by the way, has had an in-stock new black M9 for sale for several weeks, at a good price.) I would also suggest to you that there are relatively few "first-timers" among M9 customers. Judging from talk on this forum, it appears that most M9 buyers are people who wanted full frame, and are moving up from M8 or from film Leicas (whose owners didn't want the smaller sensor in the M8).

 

All of that means that a false step, or a failure to produce a desirable camera, will mean that the owner has to pour more money in, or the company fails. Which brings up an interesting question -- What does Leica do when the M9 orders are filled? What would a traditionalist M10 offer that the M9 can't? Perhaps slightly more resolution? Would you pay $8000 to move from 18mp to 21mp or 24mp? Neither would I.

 

The argument, it seems to me, is not whether Leica will modernize -- if it is to survive -- but at what pace? I don't see AF in the offing, but some kind of focus-confirm, and perhaps Live View (which would make the 135 M glass usable), seem to be real possibilities.

 

JC

[Xmas]

They can't keep up not because of overwhelming demand, but because they are a marginal company with a small manufacturing workforce. If Canon were producing the M9, there would have been in-stock cameras after the first week. (And Popflash Photo, by the way, has had an in-stock new black M9 for sale for several weeks, at a good price.) I would also suggest to you that there are relatively few "first-timers" among M9 customers. Judging from talk on this forum, it appears that most M9 buyers are people who wanted full frame, and are moving up from M8 or from film Leicas (whose owners didn't want the smaller sensor in the M8).

 

All of that means that a false step, or a failure to produce a desirable camera, will mean that the owner has to pour more money in, or the company fails. Which brings up an interesting question -- What does Leica do when the M9 orders are filled? What would a traditionalist M10 offer that the M9 can't? Perhaps slightly more resolution? Would you pay $8000 to move from 18mp to 21mp or 24mp? Neither would I.

 

The argument, it seems to me, is not whether Leica will modernize -- if it is to survive -- but at what pace? I don't see AF in the offing, but some kind of focus-confirm, and perhaps Live View (which would make the 135 M glass usable), seem to be real possibilities.

 

JC

 

For most of the 50s, Leica had the Barnack and the M3, cheap and expensive.

Ditto the 60 M2 and M3, except when they went to M4.

There were then able to hold their own against Canon and Nikon, although they were more expensive and only equivalent in technology, The Ja were adopting Deming, and squeezing Leitz.

They did not compete with Canon and Nikon when they went to SLR, perhaps they tried but t was feeble, Zeiss were worse.

Today there in a worse situation they have cheaper film cameras and more expensice digital, and Cosina the competition probably have more turn over in M lenses, nothing to speak of in M bodies. their profit in M lenses will be higher then Leica's profit on M lenses.

If Cosina introduce a cheap RD/1 follow on then it may be full frame, might have a comparable or better sensor than the M9...This could damage Leicas M9 sales.

I'd suggest they have no option but to enhance sensor technology, cause they wont be able to compete on price, more pixels, less IR, better low level noise, more reliable.

The new LED frame are wonderbar a lot cheaper to manufacture, as were the zinc topplates..

I'm not saving for an M9 or M10 any more...

Noel

[Rick]

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.JC

 

I know what you mean and agree that some people have better hit rates with AF. But, that was not what I said or was it my point. I said the current rangefinder can provide more precise focus... This is irrespective of the human factor which will vary widely from copy to copy (of human). But, the rangefinder itself is very precise within its limits. My point was that the optical design of the rangefinder mechanism is an elegant and precise application of optical design.

 

My solution, for the sight impaired, at this point in time, would be to keep the current optical rangefinder and simply change the magnification of the finder and possibly add built in magnification on top of different finder choices. Let people choose what makes it easier for them. Might help some. But, keep the concept the same.

 

I'm also not clear on why the patch has to be so small. It seems to me that if the patch was 4 times larger it would be easier for lower visioned persons to see. I have perfect vision and I admit to sometimes having a hard time seeing that little patch. I know it would not decrease the acuity demand of what is inside the patch area but, it would give a larger area to scan for sharpness. Maybe someone with a better understanding of how the patch works could comment.

 

Just a mental exercise: What would the view through the finder be like if, the patch was as large as the entire finder? I know that you would lose the broken line, vernier alignment method. But, I wonder if it would give a sort of focus field of view. Not DOF. But, focus field of view. Wouldn't mind looking through that on the bench.

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just above you asked for a histogram and focus verification in the viewfinder, and now you're against change again?

 

I am asking for a dynamic and unobtrusive display of live histogram as recorded by the processor and the display of speed, as well as a focus confirmation and thats all. Nothing else. So you don't need to chimp. A simplified outline of a live histo can be done using monochrome matrix LED screens that can project the same way the current one is projected. But it has to be accurate.

And dynamic. That will rule

 

 

Oh, obviously I am asking these on a future M

[jaapv]

 

 

(which would make the 135 M glass usable)

 

JC

 

:confused:

[Bob Andersson]

Hi folks,

 

One item from my original post in this thread which doesn't seem to have atttracted much discussion is my observation that a hybrid viewfinder, when in "LCD mode" for want of a better term, might offer "a better experience when extreme wide-angle or telephoto lenses are used".

 

Wouldn't this be better than attaching an accessory viewfinder for the wide-angle lenses? And wouldn't having the image from, say, a 135 mm Apo-Telyt actually filling the viewfinder be a useful option?

 

One implication of the hybrid viewfinder would be that Live View must be implemented for it to work. It wouldn't actually be needed unless the viewfinder was in "LCD mode" though if it were permanently available focus confirmation (contrast based) would be available at all times if wanted.

 

I found RickLeica's point about the LCD potentially reducing the contrast in the viewfinder even when it's not being used as the primary display thought provoking. I guess we will know more about whether that is a problem when the FinePix X100 ships but even if Fujifilm falls short Leica might still be able to pull the rabbit out of the hat as some LCD computer monitor screens exhibit a dark background and good anti-reflective properties and new technologies like OLED might also help. There might be a higher draw from the battery to drive such a high contrast display but batteries improve and I'm sure Leica enjoys a challenge.

 

Anyway, thanks for your contributions so far: I've enjoyed reading them. Keep 'em coming.

 

Bob.

[stealthman_1]

i've always been in the 'leave it alone camp', but the Fuji implementation is making me rethink that in a hurry. I think that viewfinder is marvelous! It's as if some simply cant read, it's only there when you want it and seems very configurable. Being able to have all that information when I need it, right there as I frame would be very helpful. Need a quick look at the histogram...before you squeeze, bam, touch the lever, need level confirmation? Bam, touch the lever. Need SS, ISO, aperture, color temp (nah, no one ever complains about the M9 AWB...), EC? Touch the lever. Need nothing? Don't touch the lever! How is that complicated? If Leica wants to save some significant warranty costs, implement the ability for a user capable RF adjustment, in software.

 

While focus confirmation would be nice, they would have to advance the technology beyond what Canon and Nikon currently have, which is precise only to f2.8. On a D3 with a Noct mounted, i can discern 7 possible minute focus adjustments with the green light on at f1.2...only one of them is dead on. The X100 will definitely be worth looking over when it is released and could, I say could, be a monumental advancement in the RF world. M3s will still shoot just fine for probably another 50 years so if you insist on simple, you can still have it!

[diogenis]

Fuji x100 has as much relation to a RF as water can mix with oil.

Fuji simply started copy pasting from cameras and manufacturers to make that model a reality. It's more a copycat than innovation

[contaxgary]

Technology provides options. The mechanical rangefinder is much in need of upgrading. A hybrid viewfinder could provide options that allow for a great deal of customization. For those that want a more dependable viewfinder mechanism, more or less information in the viewfinder, low light viewfinder/rangefinder augmentation, various focusing aids, including simulated mechanical viewfinder and many yet to be imagined options.. they are all available should they be wanted. I suspect that high ISO photography will become a common, high quality image option and the viewfinder will need to keep pace. In five year you will be doing your street photography at night with moonlight providing your key light. Technology will not get in the way of your photography. Technology will give you options. End of my rant, Now, I'm going to climb up on my horse and ride back to my cave.

[lars_bergquist]

[ ... ] End of my rant, Now, I'm going to climb up on my horse and ride back to my cave.

 

The Canon Cave, I presume.

 

The Leica M is a supreme tool, simply -- yes, simply -- because it is an extension of your senses. Not a computer interface with a lens on it.

 

You see, this weird animal itself, Homo sapiens, has an interface that goes back at least two million years before the present. It is, unfortunately, an interface evolved for dodging leopards, finding mung nuts and chasing ladies, not with finding the right button among x others and remembering how it is configured just now. This is the reason why things like quantum mechanics remains so obstinately counter-intuitive to us, however simple it really is. Actually, psychological experiments with university students studying natural sciences demonstrate that even classical Newtonian physics is counter-intuitive.

 

And the trouble is that we cannot do a damn thing about it.

 

So manufacturers of cameras (and mobile phones, and automobiles, and laptop computers) have to adjust to that paleolithic human interface. Most of them do a bad job of it. Leica have done a passable job of it, up to now. So the first commandment remains ...

 

... don't clutter it up, don't clutter it up, don't clutter it up, DON'T CLUTTER IT UP ...

 

The old man from the lower Paleolithic

[lars_bergquist]

Now don't get me wrong.

 

Options to make that interface function more smoothly are always welcome. I would welcome projected LED framelines because they could minimize finder clutter (I would hope for an improved battery too, to go with it!) I would accept an electronic rangefinder too, if it would be faster and more precise, or at least as precise, as the present one. Obviously, it would be silly to develop super-sharp lenses and then focus them with an imprecise system. I would (perhaps) accept more info in the finder, if I could call it up momentarily, and then dismiss it.

 

Some of the ideas here are plain unreal. Someone wanted a live histogram in the finder, and not intrusive, of course. Well, son, I guess it would not intrude on the 135mm field. Maybe not on 90mm either. But for anyone using 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and most likely 75mm it would sit there smack in the field of view.

 

In the brave new world of micro-electronics, "features" are cheap. Just write a few lines of code and put a button somewhere on the outside. And "features" impress the general public. A photographer knows what he/she needs, but if photographers, or people willing to learn, were the only prospective camera buyers, the industry would go bust. It takes courage to go against the current, fighting featureitis. But fighting featureitis is nearly as important as fighting multi-resistant bacteria.

 

Some of us are a bit uncritical of the X-100. For now, this is not a camera but a bunch of ideas. Some of them are good. But they must work, and work together. And there are other needs to, that have not been mentioned at all, like reliable zone focusing, which demands a lens that can be set to (say) five meters and stay there. Harry Truman used to say, "I'm from Missouri, show me." I am not from Missouri, but I too want evidence, not just talk.

 

The old man from the lower Paleolithic (= Kodachrome Days)

[diogenis]

Agree with all of this, but if they decide to ever make such an M, without having live histogram showing would be an omission. Most people still chimp because they want to advise their histogram function. An outline of live histogram would be real helpful while shooting. It would replace the arrows of the 60s/70s

[lars_bergquist]

It would not be a functional replacement for the present manual exposure display. Which was introduced with the M6 in 1984 btw; the M5 and the CL used meter needles.

 

A live histogram, wherever you want to put it, does of course demand a CMOS sensor, because it is a form of live view (like focus confirmation by contrast from the sensor). I do think Leica will go CMOS sooner or later. For now however it is interesting to note that no medium format camera I know of uses CMOS. I may be wrong there. For me, medium format went out with film so I'm not very updated.

 

The paleolithic old man

[pgk]

Why not go all the way? I'm sure that an innovative manufacturer like Leica could come up with a user adjustable, auto-composition system using arrows around frame edges and flashing frame lines to indicate best lens choice/move closer/back off. This would be real innovation;).

 

On the other hand wouldn't it simply be the ultimate extension of much of what is being discussed here - removing the absolute knowledge/experience requirements of a photographer? I read some interesting ideas but bluntly, most are gimmicks, they won't help ME to take better images. I am in the camp which prefers simplicity - I have 2 x 5D2s and still haven't bothered to figure out some of the buttons/features - they have no place in my photographic requirements - and the same goes for most of the ideas shown here. In fact I use my 5D2s in manual mode the majority of the time so they have an awful lot of wasted features for me.

 

I'm perfectly happy with the M (rangefinder) concept in its current form - the existing cameras could actually be stripped back to a more digital MP version for me (I would be happy without auto-exposure, jpegs, B&W, etc., etc.. If an M10 was a digital version of the mechanical MP (only the Hasselbad 500 series can be fully mechanical digital cameras AFAIA?), I would be more interested in it than if it has hybrid viewfinder, cluttered display, zoom viewfinder, and so on. I tend to think that specifications are getting silly - whenever I look at new camera specs I find it more and more difficult to read the very basic info for the vast irrelevant data surrounding it.

[Bob Andersson]

Hi Lars,

 

I share some of your concerns about human evolution but on the subject of nuts so long as the trees keep it simple and only produce one type of nut per species we generally cope and sometimes we even learn that the nuts on a tree that is new to us taste nice.

 

But one thing we tend not to do well is complicated, particularly in real time situations. Hence my suggestion that, if it can be incorporated, a hybrid viewfinder should essentially be invisible just overlaying the field lines and the simplest of shooting data as a default - essentially providing the current experience. Using the image field selector to quickly switch extra stuff on or off and/or switching to full EVF mode when the situation warranted it would seem a natural way forward and would definitely have the virtue of being simple. I guess it's down to the boffins (and bean counters) at Leica to decide if it's doable while retaining the rangefinder mechanism. If it is then I'm struggling to find a single reason why it shouldn't happen.

 

Bob.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lars_bergquist]

I am in the camp which prefers simplicity - I have 2 x 5D2s and still haven't bothered to figure out some of the buttons/features - they have no place in my photographic requirements - and the same goes for most of the ideas shown here. In fact I use my 5D2s in manual mode the majority of the time so they have an awful lot of wasted features for me.

Exactly. The human perceptual system has a very limited bandwidth. It has recently been shown that we cannot really walk and chew gum at the same time -- that is, if we have to give any attention to what we are doing. Try go down a couple of stair steps, and you have to stop chewing.

 

In camera design, this is a no-fact. Most modern cameras are sufferable simply because we can learn to ignore most of the buttons. The least obnoxious designs are those where the relevant buttons (or whatever) are clearly defined and easy to remember. If we would try to remember all the options in the manual, we would go bananas -- and no pictures would be taken.

 

The S2 user interface is interesting, in that it tries to boil itself down to what a practical photographer really needs, and hides the rest. It's there if you want to reconfigure your camera, but the intent is that it should not get underfoot. I think the coming M10 will sport not only the fast ASIC Maestro chip, but also a redesigned rear interface. That will be controversial -- but it should be done. The M8/M9 are strewn with buttons that get inadvertently touched when in action, and the darnedest things can happen. Today I found that just by normally handling the camera, I had changed the ISO from 250 to 80. And I have fairly small hands.

 

The old man from the Bone Cave

[lars_bergquist]

And Bob, I'm mostly with you.

 

The old man from the Bone Cave