EVF for M9

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Or they feel it inappropriate for their bread and butter model that makes all of their serious profit.

[AlanG]

Or they feel it inappropriate for their bread and butter model that makes all of their serious profit.

 

I can't think of any logical reason why Leica would feel it is "inappropriate" to include live view in an M or any other model. This is the same company that once made a sliding ground glass viewing adapter for its cameras.

[redbaron]

Here's one:

 

"The Leica M-System, for example, is a masterpiece in the art of minimalist design..."

 

 

http://en.leica-camera.com/culture/corporate_values/

[AlanG]

Here's one:

 

"The Leica M-System, for example, is a masterpiece in the art of minimalist design..."

 

 

http://en.leica-camera.com/culture/corporate_values/

 

I disagree. Live view on a digital camera is about as minimalist as it gets. The rangefinder and associated mechanism of linkages to the lenses is extremely complex by comparison.

[jaapv]

Ummm.. The concept of minimalism does not presuppose that the technology to achieve a minimalistic machine is simple. It applies to the end result. As such I cannot see that it can be an argument either for or against EVF in this discussion, as both systems meet the criteria imo.

[redbaron]

I agree that technology, per se, should not be used as an argument for, or against minimalist design, but I would consider a purely mechanical system, which allows the least user customisation and control, to be more so. If that makes sense. The only control of the viewfinder, at the moment, is the frame selector lever. An EVF would presumably have menu options and various other controls.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree that technology, per se, should not be used as an argument for, or against minimalist design, but I would consider a purely mechanical system, which allows the least user customisation and control, to be more so. If that makes sense. The only control of the viewfinder, at the moment, is the frame selector lever. An EVF would presumably have menu options and various other controls.

 

Well you can customize by using separate viewfinders.

 

Minimalism shminimalism. A box camera is pretty minimalistic and you can't get simpler focusing than using the ground glass on a view camera. The lack of customization does not magically turn a complex and delicate system of lenses, mirrors, coupled focusing mounts and linkages into a minimalistic design. Additionally, this design requires accurate lens to body calibration and periodic adjustment. Isn't that customization and what is so minimalistic about that?

 

You can split hairs any way you want but the vast vast majority of digital cameras have live view and you don't hear a lot of people saying that they are upset about having it. I think that the elimination of optical viewfinders in most p&s cameras is bad, but I found the live view in my first digital P&S 11 years ago to be very handy despite the fact that it also had a nice optical viewfinder. I don't see why anyone would want to give that up just for some hypothetical view of minimalism or tradition. A lot of that already went out the door once the Leica M went digital. But then I'm open to pretty much anything.

[redbaron]

The lack of customization does not magically turn a complex and delicate system of lenses, mirrors, coupled focusing mounts and linkages into a minimalistic design.

 

In ergonomic terms it does. While I'm working I want the least amount of controls possible. Once I set the ASA all I need are controls for aperture, shutter and focus, for a film camera. Everything else is a WOFTAM, IMHO.

 

(BTW, this theory, has nothing to do with digital/film, just in case someone thinks I'm making that claim. I'm talking about the ergonomics of the viewfinder, which is common to both the MP and M9.)

[bill]

Live view on a digital camera is about as minimalist as it gets.

 

I just want to isolate this assertion and highlight it for the complete nonsense that it is. How on Earth can live view be "minimalist"? It is bloatware, pure and simple, appealing primarily to those trading up from digital compacts who are used to composing on a screen at arms length. It adds unwelcome and unnecessary complexity to the M concept.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[denoir]

Live view is as minimalist as it gets from a picture creation point. You see what the sensor sees. It's the closest you'll get to the actual image and much more direct than framing by using wildly inaccurate framelines and (mis)focusing by a mechanical system that can get miscalibrated by a bump.

 

The live view debate was a good litmus test when it was going on in the DSLR world. You quickly see which people have simply a gear fetish and which actually care about the images created.

[bill]

It's the closest you'll get to the actual image...

 

I want to get close to the subject not the "image". I don't want to stick a little tv screen between me and the world. I want to see reality not a bunch of electrons.

 

Funny that photographers have managed all this time with those "wildly inaccurate" framelnes and oh-so fragile mechanical (horrors!) rangefinder mechanisms... Thank Dawkins for Live View! Our prayers are answered..!

[NZDavid]

A fascinating thread on a seemingly minor subject that keeps going. I wonder why? I think it's because it represents a fundamental divergence in philosophy between those who want the Leica M to keep evolving (Alan G), and those who want to keep it mostly the same (Bill et al).

 

It's an emotive but thankfully so far a relatively civilized debate, which is more productive. I think there is fundamental agreement that the baby should not be thrown out with the bath water, that what makes the Leica special should not be sacrificed for the sake of adding new features simply because they're new. The issue is whether those features are genuinely useful, or are mere gimmicks ("bloatware") and me-too frippery. If useful, why not have them -- so long as they don't result in compromises to the core product? We're not talking about multiple subject modes or GPS or even a fold-out LCD or HD video.

 

My view is that the Leica M3 was already perfect, a tool suited to its purpose. Developments to the M (the main one being a built-in meter) enhanced usability. The main challenge in the digital age has been to devise a solution that lives up to the proven Leica virtues of technical excellence, longevity, and reliability. That's a big challenge: most computer-based products may be very clever indeed, but fail especially in terms of reliability and robustness. Seems to be a mixed report, but mostly good, for the M9 so far.

 

So to the M viewfinder. As stated above, the M finder is an optico-mechanical masterpiece. I find it ideal for its purpose and in many ways it exceeds AF in precision. The range/viewfinder is what makes the M special and unique.

 

But not everybody finds RF easy to use. In that case, why not choose one of the myriad SLRs and AF cameras with EVF? Or use Leica optics and go for an EVIL body? Does the M really need to turn EVIL? Why not keep it pure?

 

I wonder, too, if people have become to used to a new way of looking at the world, influenced by computers. The technocratic computer programmer view versus the artistic analog view. People are peering intently at close-up images on screen (pixel peeping) instead of gazing at the far horizon (our hunter-gatherer heritage). In the process could we be at risk of developing wonky necks, bad backs, and becoming shortsighted?

[AlanG]

I want to get close to the subject not the "image". I don't want to stick a little tv screen between me and the world. I want to see reality not a bunch of electrons.

 

Funny that photographers have managed all this time with those "wildly inaccurate" framelnes and oh-so fragile mechanical (horrors!) rangefinder mechanisms... Thank Dawkins for Live View! Our prayers are answered..!

 

So? A lot of people shoot from the hip without using any kind of viewfinder at all. That's very direct and you don't even have an optical viewfinder or camera between you and your subject. You can do that with any camera. And you can always add a viewfinder to any camera.

 

Since many subjects are inanimate objects, all that really matters for those shots is being able to get the final image that you hope for. The process of getting that will be irrelevant. If one wants predictability, precision, convenience, and control, live view works very well for this. For action, one can still use the rangefinder/viewfinder. And if your rangefinder goes out of alignment, you will still have a way to focus. Speed Graphics had rangefinders/viewfinders along with ground glass focusing for exactly the same reasons. I bet some photographers rarely used the ground glass and others used it a lot.

[pico]

u can split hairs any way you want but the vast vast majority of digital cameras have live view

 

Not yet, they don't.

 

And to add a data-point: the shutter lag of the M9 is so short compared to the rest of the lot that ... well, I guess nobody really cares anymore.

[denoir]

I want to get close to the subject not the "image". I don't want to stick a little tv screen between me and the world. I want to see reality not a bunch of electrons.

 

Funny that photographers have managed all this time with those "wildly inaccurate" framelnes and oh-so fragile mechanical (horrors!) rangefinder mechanisms... Thank Dawkins for Live View! Our prayers are answered..!

 

People have managed even before the framelines. Just because something works doesn't mean that it can't be improved. And a claim of "it's old so it must be good" doesn't hold water when technology is being discussed.

 

Now, as for getting close to the subject.. I'm primarily a landscape photographer and in that particular type of photography exact framing and composition are alpha and omega. As much as I like my M9 for casual photography, it's really not the best tool for landscape photography. If they came out with an M with live view then I'd happily throw out my DSLRs. I want exact framing and pixel level focus accuracy - something that a classical rangefinder can't provide.

 

For a future M, I'd suggest a replacement of the mechanical rangefinder coupling with an electronic one and a CMOS sensor with live view. Those that use it as a traditional rangefinder won't notice any difference in operation except that they won't have to send their camera to Leica for calibration.

[pico]

People have managed even before the framelines. Just because something works doesn't mean that it can't be improved. And a claim of "it's old so it must be good" doesn't hold water when technology is being discussed.

 

With respect, many of us have transcended the difference between what is presented in-camera and what becomes in output. All these whiners who live in a viewfinder, wanting more and more 'information' should use their brains instead. That's a fundamental downturn with technology - people look to tech rather than learn how to use their BRAIN.

 

Now, as for getting close to the subject.. I'm primarily a landscape photographer [...]

 

For which the miniature format is an abysmal compromise. Oy! It's not like the landscape is going to run away! And I'll bet you even use a tripod. Get real.

 

For a future M, I'd suggest a replacement of the mechanical rangefinder coupling with an electronic one and a CMOS sensor with live view. Those that use it as a traditional rangefinder won't notice any difference in operation except that they won't have to send their camera to Leica for calibration.

 

Those that use it as a traditional rangefinder will CERTAINLY notice a difference. Have you even used the crap live-view technology available today? It is just so bad.

 

Read up on disruptive technology, the giant Asian industry, and be happy that Leica has a niche. If you don't like what they offer from Solms and Portugal, then become a champion of some other company.

 

.

[bill]

For a future M, I'd suggest a replacement of the mechanical rangefinder coupling with an electronic one and a CMOS sensor with live view. Those that use it as a traditional rangefinder won't notice any difference in operation except that they won't have to send their camera to Leica for calibration.

 

Ah, a wind-up merchant. That's the fastest trip to the ignore list in living memory...

[NZDavid]

...And a claim of "it's old so it must be good" doesn't hold water when technology is being discussed...

 

Nor does "it's new so it must be good."

[pop]

You're all fools. It is, of course, terribly obvious that Leica must cover all my needs down to the slightest whims before any of yours can even be thought of being considered.

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hoppyman]

Denoir, those are remarkable statements on requirements for landscape photography:eek:

On first impressions perhaps you are being mischievous??? I'd hate to have mis-judged you,.

Will you please post some links to some of your work?