Should the M9 successor have a Hybrid Viewfinder

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's not about the money... If you don't even comprend that, we are wasting our breath.

[contaxgary]

Yes, it is not about the money. That is what I stated. Why do you post this? Read my post please.

 

I only post on this thread because I was one of the potential purchasers of the M9 and I did not buy it because it was not what I wanted. I decided to stay with my film cameras, of which I have many Leica, Zeiss and CV cameras and lenses. In other words, I am invested in the 'M' system and love rangefinders. I love the size and the function, but after sixty years there are some improvements that can and need to be made. Your quick reply makes me think that you feel that I'm just critical of your beloved system and this just isn't so. I really love the 'M' system, but I'm not married to Leica. I also love my M-Hex 50mm f/1.2, Zeiss Ikons and so on. I really love my Leica 'M' cameras. I'm with you. I pay good money to have my finders upgraded and single framelines. I hate clutter. I love simplicity. I love manual controls. I use an incident meter much of the time. I'm on your side... I think. I hang out more on rangefinderforum.com, so don't post much here. I find this site a bit more Leica-centric. Go figure.. with a name like Leica Forum..

[bill]

Yes, it is not about the money. That is what I stated. Why do you post this. Read my post please.

 

Tell you what, let's read your post together, shall we?

 

I don't understand the "more stuff" concern.

 

Clearly... You appear incapable of comprehending that there can be anyone for whom additional bloatware and automation is anathema, because it gets between them and the subject and does nothing to add to either the experience or the end result.

 

We are talking about a very expensive camera which might go up by $500 to $1000 in order to add additional electronics.

 

Are you a qualified camera designer? Where did you get your "estimate" from...? In any event, why should I pay for your little tinker toys if I do not want them? Don't tell me I can turn them off, because in your nirvana I have already "paid" for them. I do not want them in the first place thank you.

 

That is chump change for all you Leica folks.

 

Whoosh! I love a sweeping generalisation, and particularly an erroneous and condescending one. It is this complete nonsense that led to my observation above. I took it to mean "you can afford the bloatware, so suck it up and stop whining." Or have I misjudged you?

 

What is not to like?

 

Pretty well everything about your "dream camera", by the look of it.

 

Your quick reply makes me think that you feel that I'm just critical of your beloved system and this just isn't so.

 

...I'm a fast typist.

[contaxgary]

Bill, you are simply condescending

.

[UliWer]

*sigh*

 

Mechanical does not equal weak. The rangefinder is a unique selling point. It is one of the primary reasons I have and use Leica. It does what it is supposed to do with a minimum of electronic clutter.

 

...l

 

Yes - though...

 

I had a glimpse or two through the viewfinder of the Fuji X 100-pre-prototype.

 

The viewfinder is a lot better than I exspected. But it is no rangefinder. The electronics which are supposed to do what the opto-mechanical rangefinder does, aren't working yet. So this is still an open case.

 

If someone came with a high-quality viewfinder and kept the electronic devices for framing and focussing tidy without any overload, but perhaps with some options, I shouldn't say no.

Electronics could help us to get back to the simplicity and quality of the M3- viewfinder, if someone made use of it in a clever way.

[bill]

Gary, rather that than chained to blinkered certitude, smugly convinced that technological advance is by definition a good thing and that anyone who thinks otherwise should be swept aside.

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Even if you don't, you can take advantage of the simple pleasures of more viewable single framelines and potentially more accurate focus and parallax correction with the same user interface...should you choose. What is not to like?

 

Gary, "what is not to like" is the essential question. It is a good question because, it gets to the functional result of the conceptual dream. It explores what the idea means once you have this redesigned camera in hand.

 

For example, what is not to like with more accurate frame lines? Nothing. But, when the question is, what is not to like with LCD derived frame lines, then the answer becomes less clear. Because, what is not to like may be a degradation of the optical path from a LCD virtual image superimposed in the viewfinder. Maybe, it is poor battery life. Maybe, it is more electronics to screw up and this results in more trips to Solms. Maybe, in the end, it really sucks to look at a tiny LCD image and you don't use it enough to warrant the problems it introduces. Maybe, less is more.

 

Please don't deconstruct the above paragraph sentence by sentence. My only point is, that there is nothing "not to like" in the concept of something like, more accurate frame lines. I agree with you. What is, not to like, is the effect on the whole. I think this is sometimes where we all get crossed up with each other, sometimes.

[bill]

My only point is, that there is nothing "not to like" in the concept of something like, more accurate frame lines. I agree with you. What is, not to like, is the effect on the whole.

 

Spot-on.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[diogenis]

Sometimes it would be nice to have more information in the viewfinder, but I'm not going to get worked up about it either way and if it came to a choce I'd rather have better 75mm framelines.

 

On the particular issue of a live histogram in the viewfinder, it would certainly be useful on occasion. But I feel that a simpler display could be more useful: one that concentrated on the highlights and on the shadows. After all, exposure problems only ever come with the highlights or the shadows; getting the midtones right is a doddle.

 

John, what on EARTH are you bubbling?

You want a live histograph as an evolution from 2 arrow leds and a red dot or not?

Simple question, simple answer. Yes/No.

Let the engineering issues to the engineers.

There is nothing simpler than what I ask: 2 arrows and a dot can be replaced by a small rectangle window with subtle tone matrix leds. Below the histogram outline you have the shutter speed. And another led to indicate in focus is met. What can be simper than that? You can even switch off main LCD screen.

[Bob Andersson]

Hi bill,

 

I chose not to reply to your post here despite the fact that I found your use of a very large graphic about as subtle as a blow to the head with a very large heavy thing, contributed very little information in relation to its size and made me wonder why you felt the need to add it to what has been a very respectful conversation.

 

But, and it's a big but, I totally respect your preference that Leica should not include a variant of the hybrid viewfinder in a future M body. I appreciate that there only a few ways you can say "No" but maybe what is effectively trying to shout louder isn't the best way to go? I say "shouting" in response to your posting large graphics, accusing other members of a lack of comprehension, suggesting that their own preferences for the future of the M-series are at the level of "tinker toys" or that they may be "whining". Pretty intemperate stuff.

 

I started this thread (yes, I'm to blame) just to explore how or even if a hybrid viewfinder might add to the the M-system in the future. The consensus, if I'm reading it right, is very much along the lines of it having no place at all if it in any way changes the current viewfinder experience when you unbox the new camera and first press the shutter. Whether those like yourself, if I've interpreted your posts correctly, who don't even want others to have an option of extra functionality through the viewfinder, even though it might be totally invisible until enabled, should have their way is very much a matter for Leica at the end of the day.

 

I'm no expert so if those that know about such things say there's no chance that a hybrid viewfinder can be made "invisible" in that way then I'm pretty sure it won't happen. But I will offer that the generally friendly exchange of ideas amongst forum members in this thread is in no way intended to, or likely to, threaten the future good sense of Leica as and when they design an M10 so you'll still have what you want. Or so I hope.

 

Bob.

[giordano]

John, what on EARTH are you bubbling?

You want a live histograph as an evolution from 2 arrow leds and a red dot or not?

Simple question, simple answer. Yes/No.

 

It's NOT a simple question. I certainly don't want a live histogram in place of the three simple LEDs.

 

Let the engineering issues to the engineers.

There is nothing simpler than what I ask: 2 arrows and a dot can be replaced by a small rectangle window with subtle tone matrix leds. Below the histogram outline you have the shutter speed. And another led to indicate in focus is met. What can be simper than that? You can even switch off main LCD screen.

 

I've been trying in this and other threads to inject a bit of realism into the wishlists. And I'll keep trying.

 

1) A small live histogram like the one on my Rico GX100 occupies about 5% of the finder area. If placed above the shutter speed indicator it would protrude further into the finder area than I like. And it doesn't give a detailed enough view of blocked highlights to support critical exposure setting. So I'm not excited about it. A much bigger histogram would be much better for exposure setting but would occupy even more of the finder area.

 

If your proposed histogram is a permanent feature, I don't want it. If I can hide it unless I actually want to see it, I don't mind having it. And that's as close as you'll get me to come to yes or no.

 

2) I can't visualise what you mean by "subtle tone matrix leds", and suspect that not many engineers could either.

 

3) We've just had a thread about focus confirmation in this forum which showed that "a led to indicate in focus is met" is anything but simple.

 

4) You still haven't admitted that a live histogram requires a live-view compatible CCD sensor.

[bill]

Hi bill,

 

I chose not to reply to your post here...

 

Bob, thank you for taking the time to respond in such a thoughtful manner. My frustration, and those of others who hold similar views, is that anyone who dares to advocate electronic or mechanical simplicity is howled down by the bloatware bunnies, time and time and time again. The level of "debate" makes "four legs good, two legs bad" sound like the most mellifluous and cogently persuasive view ever expounded.

 

Let me be clear.

 

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 their hobby-horse, flavour of the moment "improvement" MUST be accepted (and paid for) by everybody.

 

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

 

I take issue with those who expect a sweeping generalisation to pass for reasoned debate.

 

I have said before and I will say again; I have no issue with the introduction of a camera that incorporates many or indeed all of these "improvements".

 

But it will not be an M(essucher).

 

In the same way that the MP and M7 continue to co-exist alongside the M9, I have no issue with the introduction of a new body with enough electronics in it to dim the lights of a small town.

 

But it will not be an M.

 

And I will not be in the queue to buy it.

 

And I am sick and tired of having that viewpoint assaulted constantly by those who think photography should be played like a video game.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Bob Andersson]

Bob, thank you for taking the time to respond in such a thoughtful manner...

I'll echo the compliment back to you for your own thoughtful reply. We might not be exactly on the same page but that's life. Respect.

 

Bob.

[stealthman_1]

 

But it will not be an M.

 

And I will not be in the queue to buy it.

 

And I am sick and tired of having that viewpoint assaulted constantly by those who think photography should be played like a video game.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Surely you don't own an M9 now do you?

 

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!!!

[pico]

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.

 

Excellent idea, IMHO.

[redbaron]

Since when did we get the right to vote for new features?

 

Leica will make what they want, for whatever reasons they want. Amen.

[sfokevin]

Since when did we get the right to vote for new features?

 

Leica will make what they want, for whatever reasons they want. Amen.

 

Leica is fully aware that every time you whip out that credit card you are voting...

 

Or do you think the M9Ti is about Leica designing what it wants?

[redbaron]

Leica is fully aware that every time you whip out that credit card you are voting...

 

Or do you think the M9Ti is about Leica designing what it wants?

 

I think you'll find that the release of the M9Ti actually supports my argument more than yours. Check out why it was made and for whom.

[diogenis]

It's NOT a simple question. I certainly don't want a live histogram in place of the three simple LEDs.

 

 

 

I've been trying in this and other threads to inject a bit of realism into the wishlists. And I'll keep trying.

 

1) A small live histogram like the one on my Rico GX100 occupies about 5% of the finder area. If placed above the shutter speed indicator it would protrude further into the finder area than I like. And it doesn't give a detailed enough view of blocked highlights to support critical exposure setting. So I'm not excited about it. A much bigger histogram would be much better for exposure setting but would occupy even more of the finder area.

 

If your proposed histogram is a permanent feature, I don't want it. If I can hide it unless I actually want to see it, I don't mind having it. And that's as close as you'll get me to come to yes or no.

 

2) I can't visualise what you mean by "subtle tone matrix leds", and suspect that not many engineers could either.

 

3) We've just had a thread about focus confirmation in this forum which showed that "a led to indicate in focus is met" is anything but simple.

 

4) You still haven't admitted that a live histogram requires a live-view compatible CCD sensor.

 

Then, the M9 is perfect as it is.

There is no need to change anything in a future M.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

Then, the M9 is perfect as it is.

There is no need to change anything in a future M.

 

With all due respect, if that is really how you read John's comments, your reading comprehension skills need improvement. Or you are intentionally misquoting him.

 

Generally speaking, if someone has to misquote another person in order to support their own ideas, that is a pretty good sign that their ideas are too flawed to stand on their own merits.