Should the M9 successor have a Hybrid Viewfinder

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Adan, he said he clearly said he preferred the arrows, for whatever the reason, which is perfectly understood and he doesn't want focus confirmation, or that it's impossible to make one which I don't get but anyway. How am I reading it wrong?

[diogenis]

Let me add some more:

You guys want an engineering solution to a problem that is not clearly identified to start with.

For instance, I feel that the manual rangefinder does it's job fine as it is, but there are occasions where one can really miss a photo particularly on fast moving subjects.

And the R/L arrow can also be nice for photo measuring, but again it really needs a lot of experience to avoid offsetting. At least that's my feeling, but maybe I am wrong

[adan]

Because he might very well have a long (or short) list of OTHER things about the M9 that may need changing - just not the viewfinder.

 

"I prefer the arrows" does not equal "The M9 is perfect as it is."

 

You do see the difference?

[diogenis]

Maybe there are, but he can then make a new thread listing those other needs. This is a thread about a "possible" hybrid viewfinder.

Some here say for instance, that Leica needs to change the optical viewfinder because when you drop the camera the RF mechanism needs alignment. Even if this is true, the camera is not designed to withstand g's of shock. Hence, the optical VF is fine as it is. If you drop your camera get it serviced which is why it is there. So, the optical VF is fine as it is

[bill]

Leica could easily put a histogram in the 5% to 15% of the frame blacked out by the LENS. Even my 35 cron with its hood intrudes into the framelines and you are worried about a histogram??? Which you could turn off??? I guess you only shoot the M3, the last Leica that the lens wasn't obvious in the precious viewfinder!!!

 

I take issue with those who think that any bloatware can "just" be fitted in.

 

I take issue with those who think that they know more about camera design than the chaps in Solms,

 

I take issue with those who think that anybody who values simplicity is a Luddite.

 

That's truly impressive. Thank you for proving most of my points in one post...

[giordano]

Andy, thanks for following the argument.

 

Diogenis, either you're trolling or you have serious comprehension problems that you're not interested in tackling. I'll try once more, just in case. IMHO:

 

1) The present M range/viewfinder is very good. Though not perfect, it's far more pleasant to use than any EVF I've ever looked at. I get the impression that virtually all M users agree.

 

2) There's no actual hybrid viewfinder on the market at present that we can examine or use. We have no idea what compromises might have to be made in the brightness, magnification and contrast of the optical finder or how well one would work in extremes of lighting.

 

3) Other threads have explored some of the practical problems in fitting live view, focus confirmation, or LCD framelines into the M form factor.

 

In those circumstances, only an idiot says "Yes, the M10 should have a hybrid viewfinder," ... and only a stick-in-the-mud says "No, the M10 viewfinder must be the same as the M9's."

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica could easily put a histogram in the 5% to 15% of the frame blacked out by the LENS.

Which comes back to the whole point of having a histogram - what is it for? Is it simply to inform you of what's going on? Or is it there to enable a better appreciation of what's going on so that exposure adjustments can be made? If its the latter (my assumption) then a histogram which takes up 5~15%of the viewfinder is IMHO way too small to be useful. Make it bigger and more informative and it immediately blocks the view of the scene in front of you. Catch 22.

 

I'd hazard a guess that there has been a great deal of work carried out on 'head up displays' by the military. Too much information in front of you will no doubt become counter productive at some point. Unfortunately, I doubt that this work will be readily available.

[diogenis]

In those circumstances, only an idiot says "Yes, the M10 should have a hybrid viewfinder," ... and only a stick-in-the-mud says "No, the M10 viewfinder must be the same as the M9's."

 

Indeed,

I am trying hard, really hard to decide which of the two will fit you in...

[giordano]

Indeed,

I am trying hard, really hard to decide which of the two will fit you in...

 

Funnily enough I don't have that problem with you.

[diogenis]

Funnily enough I don't have that problem with you.

 

Obviously not. You show some very fine -extra five samples of taste...

[flyalf]

Exposure compensation, ISO setting and number of frames left would be fantastic too. The M9 lacks some important information in the viewfinder.

I Also, the ability to show a live histogram, shutter speed etc. would be fantastic, and could be switched off if you don't want to clutter the view.

 

Having said this, nothing should be at the expense of the rangefinder. That has to stay. And no AF on the M please.

 

I would have to disagree with you. Coming from DSLRs the real strenght of Leica M9 is to have a clear finder without the distracting so-called information. The M9 lacks no information in the finder except more . So a 1:1 finder would be a photo improvement, as seen in the RD-1.

 

What the M9 lacks is a dedicated ISO switch that shows the value without powering the camera on. As seen in the RD-1.

 

Just my opinion.

[zlatkob]

I would have to disagree with you. Coming from DSLRs the real strenght of Leica M9 is to have a clear finder without the distracting so-called information. The M9 lacks no information in the finder except more . So a 1:1 finder would be a photo improvement, as seen in the RD-1.

 

What the M9 lacks is a dedicated ISO switch that shows the value without powering the camera on. As seen in the RD-1.

 

This shows how people can look at the same object and see different things. The M9 viewfinder is not "clear". It shows two sets of frame lines, one of which always has no purpose. It has symbols that are unintuitive, such as dot above and dot below. If you set exposure compensation, one of those dots flashes constantly, and yet it is so small that you can easily miss it. The viewfinder has numbers/symbols right within the 28mm & 35mm framelines. And they glow in a bright red color.

 

The M9 viewfinder isn't just a clear view of the subject; it is also the light meter. But that light meter has only 5 discrete steps: arrow, arrow+dot, dot, dot+arrow, arrow. When you're on either arrow, it gives no clue how far off you are. This is a very discrete, "digital" way of metering, unlike scales that look more analog and are thus more readable.

 

By comparison, look at the viewfinder of the 5DII (which is not necessarily the best). There are 9 subtle focus points over the image. All of the remaining info is outside the image and instantly available, including battery status, ISO, aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation and shots remaining in buffer. While there's much more info, it is all in a less distracting, dim green color.

 

If you've ever set the wrong ISO, or hit the buffer, or been caught without battery power, then you appreciate that this is real information with real consequences, not "so-called information". On the M9, you have to press buttons every time you want to check essential info like ISO or battery status. Pushing buttons just to check basic info is more like working with a computer than a camera. (Imagine that your car required button pushes just to check your fuel level or or your speed on the road!)

 

The 5D2's metering info is a scale with 13 discrete steps covering four stops. (The 1D series covers 6 stops.) Within those 4 stops, you know exactly how far off you are, within 1/3 of a stop. The effect of a scale with more steps is that it feels more analog than digital.

 

The M9 is wonderful in its way, but I feel that some aspects of the interface can be further refined and made more analog, more functional, in a future model — consistent with the Leica philosophy, IMO.

 

I agree with you about a dedicated ISO control, however. That would make a lot of sense.

[flyalf]

This shows how people can look at the same object and see different things. The M9 viewfinder is not "clear". It shows two sets of frame lines, one of which always has no purpose. It has symbols that are unintuitive, such as dot above and dot below. If you set exposure compensation, one of those dots flashes constantly, and yet it is so small that you can easily miss it. The viewfinder has numbers/symbols right within the 28mm & 35mm framelines. And they glow in a bright red color.

 

The M9 viewfinder isn't just a clear view of the subject; it is also the light meter. But that light meter has only 5 discrete steps: arrow, arrow+dot, dot, dot+arrow, arrow. When you're on either arrow, it gives no clue how far off you are. This is a very discrete, "digital" way of metering, unlike scales that look more analog and are thus more readable.

 

By comparison, look at the viewfinder of the 5DII (which is not necessarily the best). There are 9 subtle focus points over the image. All of the remaining info is outside the image and instantly available, including battery status, ISO, aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation and shots remaining in buffer. While there's much more info, it is all in a less distracting, dim green color.

 

If you've ever set the wrong ISO, or hit the buffer, or been caught without battery power, then you appreciate that this is real information with real consequences, not "so-called information". On the M9, you have to press buttons every time you want to check essential info like ISO or battery status. Pushing buttons just to check basic info is more like working with a computer than a camera. (Imagine that your car required button pushes just to check your fuel level or or your speed on the road!)

 

The 5D2's metering info is a scale with 13 discrete steps covering four stops. (The 1D series covers 6 stops.) Within those 4 stops, you know exactly how far off you are, within 1/3 of a stop. The effect of a scale with more steps is that it feels more analog than digital.

 

The M9 is wonderful in its way, but I feel that some aspects of the interface can be further refined and made more analog, more functional, in a future model — consistent with the Leica philosophy, IMO.

 

I agree with you about a dedicated ISO control, however. That would make a lot of sense.

 

You are correct in many ways. However; my last DLSR was a Nikon D700. It was a relif replacing this with RD-1,and then M9 on general handling as well as the viewfinder. But after reading your reply I find it hard to put the finger on exact points. When I take photos with M9 I usually use "A", or for some conditions manual. The manual are set before shooting. When I shoot I honestly do not see any light meeter nor LEDs .

 

As to battery status thats not a concern for me. I have a general feeling of charge left and changes battery when needed. I ceratinly would not prefer this to be displayed in finder.

 

I also find it hard to understand why the information shown in the viewfinder cannot be customised by user, I would prefer to be able to turn off allmost all information in DSLRs. But thats another story :-)

[Bob Andersson]

...I also find it hard to understand why the information shown in the viewfinder cannot be customised by user, I would prefer to be able to turn off allmost all information...

That would certainly be an option that a hybrid viewfinder could offer but I doubt you need a hybrid viewfinder to do this. We've already covered the virtual necessity, expressed by many contributors here, that for a hybrid viewfinder to even make it onto a short-list of innovations in a successor to the M9 the LCD portion should be totally invisible unless extra functionality is switched on. If that can be done then what is or is not present and how customisable it is is presumably just down to how Leica want to implement it.

 

Bob.

[haroldp]

Changing the way the framelines are projected does not change the concept. Not does an optical signal that the RF patches are in maximum overlap.

 

I agree, and would welcome both better framing accuracy, and more flexibility in lens FOV framing without auxiliary viewfinders ( I prefer guessing with the WATE rather than mount the frankenfinder ). Electronically projected framelines could do this without changing the gestalt. Perhaps the LED frameline illumination on the M9 titanioum is a practice round for this.

 

I would not like any solution that requires the shuitter to remain open ( liveview or sensor based focusing ) as my M9 sensor is enough of a dust magnet right now.

 

regards to all ..... H

[stealthman_1]

Here's another thing that a hybrid viewfinder could do that should surely piss a few people off...

A hybrid finder could, in a manner similar to how clipping is displayed in a reviewed scene, indicate the elements of the scene that are in focus, either alone in the rangefinder patch or even across the whole image. If a clipping type solution (somewhat translucent) isn't sufficient, an enhanced contrast, even more so than the current patch provides could aid in the focus plane. Of course, as said before, an electronic focus solution of more resolution than is currently employed in other flagship bodies would be required.

[Bob Andersson]

Hi folks,

 

With the Question Time blog (Googlish) now released I suggest this thread has now run its course. If I understand the translation correctly (sorry, I have no German) then a CMOS sensor is not to be expected in the next generation digital M and without that a hybrid viewfinder ain't going to happen.

 

Thanks to all for an interesting discussion. I'm not at all convinced by the idea that the Fujifilm FinePix X100 is an "advertisement" for the X1 but at least the M-system is an ecological niche that the major players are unlikely to want to browse in. Unless Fuji goes mad and releases an X200 with an M-mount.

 

Maybe the hybrid viewfinder concept will find a place in the mirrorless "digital solution for R lenses" but this section isn't the place for that discussion.

 

Again, thanks to all.

 

Bob.

[mjh]

If I understand the translation correctly (sorry, I have no German) then a CMOS sensor is not to be expected in the next generation digital M and without that a hybrid viewfinder ain't going to happen.

No, that is not at all what they have said. It is just that live-view is impossible with the the CCD in the M9 while a successor may (or may not) have a CMOS sensor, thus (theoretically) supporting live-view.

 

In any case there are two aspects to a hybrid viewfinder as seen in the X100: (a) there is an LCD panel creating computer-generated frame lines and optionally all kinds of additional displays as an overlay of an optical viewfinder image, and ( this LCD panel can also double up as an electronic viewfinder. Even without live-view, (a) would still be viable and could be a worthwhile improvement of the traditional rangefinder while retaining all the defining characteristics of the latter.

[bill]

With the Question Time blog (Googlish) now released I suggest this thread has now run its course. If I understand the translation correctly (sorry, I have no German)...

 

No, that is not at all what they have said...

 

 

Which is a graphic illustration of why I would respectfully suggest that this is one of those occasions when patience would be a virtue. As I understand it, the German transcript, approved by Leica, is being translated into English by a human being. Shall we wait and pore over a single version of the truth rather than go off half-cocked?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Steve Ash]

What I do not like about the EVF is that it would require to press a button to illuminate the framelines. I would not complain about an optional external EVF but I would prefer to keep the M as simple as it is.

 

Regards

Steve