EVF for M9

[ohnri]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Good grief.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

I share your exasperation.

 

Of course we differ in our goals. I want to see progress and a better, more capable M camera, one with the option of truly accurate focus.

 

For those such as yourself, for whom the current RF works perfectly, I am happy for you.

 

But not everyone wants to watch Leica fall behind again and suffer another near death due to lack of imagination and innovation.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

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

[redbaron]

Just for argument's sake, let's all agree that an EVF is a fantastic and necessary feature.

 

Now what?

 

Is Leica suddenly going to make the thing? Can it even be made? Do they want to make it? Would it sell?

 

We might as well argue that the moon should be made of cheese.

[algrove]

No, there's no EVF for the M9, and no possible way of fitting an EVF to the M9.

 

There has been some speculation that Leica may partner with someone (Panasonic perhaps) to make an EVIL body which could take M and R lenses, but it's just that, speculation.

 

Unless you're prepared to settle for micro 4/3rds solutions then you really need to forget using Leica and find another system to suit your purposes.

 

I recently bought a Zeiss 50/1.5 for my M9. Due to so many forum comments on that lens and its inability to focus sharply at 1.5 for many, I decided to add a Panasonic GF1 w/ EVF to my inventory in order to help 'ol me confirm that the Zeiss (with M adapter=100mm) would give me what I wanted at 1.5 since I recently had eye surgery-thank God left eye only-and am having a lengthy return to normal life. I must say the GF1 is a joy to use with EVF with either my Leica or Zeiss lenses. Even my old Hector 135 (270mm on the GF1) produces very sharp & gorgeous images on the GF1. I must say hip shots with the pancake 20/1.7 lens set at A at a flea market last weekend yielded pleasing results since I got one shot I liked.

 

Since using the GF1 with EVF, I have decided NOT to buy a second M9 body, but instead bought a second GF1 body. I have not made a living from photography since 30 years so I must say I miss the darkroom and will probably struggle for the rest of my life with digital processing with its too many options for old me.

 

Perhaps once I get all images on PS and start processing in earnest, I will begin to notice other than ideal results from the GF1, but until then I am fat, dumb and happy. I still have lots of wall space for 11x17" prints.

[hoppyman]

Bill that doesn't make sense to me. A good tripod with good technique has the potential to extract the best from lenses, especially high quality Leica M lenses. On the one hand you seem to be calling for very significant design changes away from the way the M9 works now yet on the other you are expressing a more 'traditional' view point that you would never consider placing a camera on a tripod.

 

Personally I disgree with both views but of course the M9 is a very different niche design unlike dSLRs. That is rather the point for those that enjoy its properties and capabilities.

 

Speaking entirely for myself, the idea of depending on operating a menu or buttons to magnify an inferior electronic image in a viewfinder or on the LCD display for focus precision is the antithesis of how I want to use my M9. I do use optical magnifiers on occasion, especially when my camera is mounted on a tripod and I am shooting more deliberately.

 

Just as an additional issue for my aging eyes, The M finders just as they are, provide the best clarity and precision for me, while any detailed analysis of anything on the (basic) LCD calls for reading glasses too. I doubt that I am alone in that demographic.

 

Here's some focus precision on tripod and I think a decent indication of how well the M9 can work with tripod with a fine modern Leica M lens.

Hedge Grasshopper in my garden photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

Wild Iris photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

 

 

I'm as likely to have an elephant to rest my camera on as a tripod.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[stunsworth]

I'm as likely to have an elephant to rest my camera on as a tripod

 

I don't use tripods either, but if your aim is to consistently get the best results from your M lenses then you ought to be using a tripod.

 

Regarding EVFs, is there one currently available that matches the resolution of an M or a good SLR? Everyone I've looked through so far has been dire, though no doubt it's a case of "jam tomorrow".

[ohnri]

Bill that doesn't make sense to me. A good tripod with good technique has the potential to extract the best from lenses, especially high quality Leica M lenses. On the one hand you seem to be calling for very significant design changes away from the way the M9 works now yet on the other you are expressing a more 'traditional' view point that you would never consider placing a camera on a tripod.

 

Personally I disgree with both views but of course the M9 is a very different niche design unlike dSLRs. That is rather the point for those that enjoy its properties and capabilities.

 

Speaking entirely for myself, the idea of depending on operating a menu or buttons to magnify an inferior electronic image in a viewfinder or on the LCD display for focus precision is the antithesis of how I want to use my M9. I do use optical magnifiers on occasion, especially when my camera is mounted on a tripod and I am shooting more deliberately.

 

Just as an additional issue for my aging eyes, The M finders just as they are, provide the best clarity and precision for me, while any detailed analysis of anything on the (basic) LCD calls for reading glasses too. I doubt that I am alone in that demographic.

 

Here's some focus precision on tripod and I think a decent indication of how well the M9 can work with tripod with a fine modern Leica M lens.

Hedge Grasshopper in my garden photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

Wild Iris photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

 

I, too, love the M finders. Some more than others though. My M3 is my favorite.

 

I also shoot with a D3x and an Olympus E-P2 and I use live view on occasion with those systems. When I need it I find it quite helpful and when I don't need it I can easily ignore it.

 

All I am saying is that the optical/mechanical focusing system for the M cameras is not perfect and that there may be ways to add useful functionality to it without losing the essential benefits. In fact, I am convinced that is the case.

 

Unfortunately, shooting on a tripod will not give any guarantee of accurate focus. Seriously, live view is one of the only ways to really be sure. However, a really high quality LCD would at least make it possible to CHECK focus after the fact, which would still be a big step forward.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[ohnri]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't use tripods either, but if your aim is to consistently get the best results from your M lenses then you ought to be using a tripod.

 

Regarding EVFs, is there one currently available that matches the resolution of an M or a good SLR? Everyone I've looked through so far has been dire, though no doubt it's a case of "jam tomorrow".

 

I'm afraid that using a tripod doesn't work well with my shooting style. Nor does it confirm accurate focus.

 

I have no trouble using the EVF on my Olympus E-P2 to get the best focus with any of my M lenses, including my Noct.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[hoppyman]

Bill , by itself, of course not!

But you were writing of extracting the very best from your lenses but dismissing tripod use, while suggesting that a magnified LiveView on the rear LCD is necessary (I don't think that you meant you are focussing via an EVF?).

 

Focusing imprecision is one factor certainly affecting potential resolution. It is not the only factor and some others are arguably as significant if not more so. Camera movement is a large one and can make any other theoretical considerations largely irrelevant. Sensor design and installation accuracy/calibration (flatness) and photosite pitch, the design decision to have no AA filter, obviously lens design and sample calibration, firmware processing (noise reduction etc) Post processing etc etc.

 

I linked to examples at 800 ISO and 640 ISO with the focus demonstrating that I have isolated individual hairs on a grasshopper within obviously very narrow DoF (a few mm only on the grasshopper). You are welcome to comment on my focus precision deficiency

 

Can you illustrate your results by linking to some critically focused Noctilux exposures on your E-P2? As long as you have used a Leica lens it is acceptable to this Forum to share results. If you are hand holding your Olympus with a Noctilux, finding it easy and efficient to use for critical focus and getting better resolution/sharpness than I am from my M9 on a tripod I shall be suitably in awe and you can say what you like about the M9 afterwards!

 

I'm afraid that using a tripod doesn't work well with my shooting style. Nor does it confirm accurate focus.

 

I have no trouble using the EVF on my Olympus E-P2 to get the best focus with any of my M lenses, including my Noct.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[ohnri]

Bill , by itself, of course not!

But you were writing of extracting the very best from your lenses but dismissing tripod use, while suggesting that a magnified LiveView on the rear LCD is necessary (I don't think that you meant you are focussing via an EVF?).

 

Focusing imprecision is one factor certainly affecting potential resolution. It is not the only factor and some others are arguably as significant if not more so. Camera movement is a large one and can make any other theoretical considerations largely irrelevant. Sensor design and installation accuracy/calibration (flatness) and photosite pitch, the design decision to have no AA filter, obviously lens design and sample calibration, firmware processing (noise reduction etc) Post processing etc etc.

 

I linked to examples at 800 ISO and 640 ISO with the focus demonstrating that I have isolated individual hairs on a grasshopper within obviously very narrow DoF (a few mm only on the grasshopper). You are welcome to comment on my focus precision deficiency

 

Can you illustrate your results by linking to some critically focused Noctilux exposures on your E-P2? As long as you have used a Leica lens it is acceptable to this Forum to share results. If you are hand holding your Olympus with a Noctilux, finding it easy and efficient to use for critical focus and getting better resolution/sharpness than I am from my M9 on a tripod I shall be suitably in awe and you can say what you like about the M9 afterwards!

 

Of course you make some excellent points!

 

Firstly, it is easy to get excellent focus with the E-P2 and ANY M lens. I can get pinpoint focus with my Noct at f2, for example, something I can't do with any of my M bodies. I don't think this is unusual. The forums are full of examples of people using live view with a variety of systems.

 

Unfortunately, E-P2 + Noct = awful results. Great focus though. Also, not so good for moving objects although you can work around that to a degree.

 

Secondly, handheld does not universally equate with camera shake. High shutter speed and handily located solid objects can eliminate that problem in many instances.

 

Thirdly, sensor miscalibration and the like are not going to be made better by poor focus so I'm not sure that those factors are that important when discussing the importance of focus.

 

Forthly, focus shift is a big bugaboo with many M lenses. There is just no practical way to compensate at every aperture and distance for every lens and body combination one may own.

 

Fifth, there are times when I want to KNOW exactly which parts of the frame are in the best possible focus and live view let's me do that.

 

Sixth, hey, I really, really like my Leica cameras. Don't get me wrong about that. But I love both my old mechanical screw mount bodies and my modern digital ones. All I want is to see reasonable use of modern technology to make future Leicas even more useful. Keeping everything completely old school forever is, to me, a BAD idea. I think Leica will always offer a big helping of old school with new technology so I'm not too worried about that.

 

Good shooting.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[hoppyman]

Never mind then Bill. we shall have to agree to disagree.

I am always happy to look and share actual examples to illustrate opinions and viewpoints though.

[earleygallery]

Fifth, there are times when I want to KNOW exactly which parts of the frame are in the best possible focus and live view let's me do that.

 

So does any SLR camera, if the M isn't right for you, you don't have to use it, there are other options out there. You might as well argue that Ferrari should make a box van.

 

The upcoming Fuji X100 has an optical viewfinder with a live view EVF built into it, but it's not a rangefinder camera of course. Interesting to see how that works, but if you can't focus with a rangefinder (assuming it's aligned etc) then I don't see how an EVF will be any easier tbh.

[bill]

Of course we differ in our goals. I want to see progress and a better, more capable M camera, one with the option of truly accurate focus.

 

I want to see progress too, but not ill-conceived, "me-too" bloatware. The M camera line has had "truly accurate focus" for the past 60 years...

 

But not everyone wants to watch Leica fall behind again and suffer another near death due to lack of imagination and innovation.

 

Nobody wants to watch Leica fall behind again. Nor do I expect them to. But they draw strength from their uniqueness. Not everyone wants the same.

 

I also shoot with a D3x and an Olympus E-P2 and I use live view on occasion with those systems. When I need it I find it quite helpful and when I don't need it I can easily ignore it.

 

I have also shot with Olympus E-520 and E-P1. I tried live view with both those systems and found it to be a gimmick that did nothing to improve focus accuracy.

 

All I am saying is that the optical/mechanical focusing system for the M cameras is not perfect and that there may be ways to add useful functionality to it without losing the essential benefits. In fact, I am convinced that is the case.

 

No focussing method is perfect. But adding bloatware is not an answer. Saying it over and over again may convince you but it does not convince us.

 

Seriously, live view is one of the only ways to really be sure. However, a really high quality LCD would at least make it possible to CHECK focus after the fact, which would still be a big step forward.

 

...a big step forward from where, exactly? All those fuzzy, out of focus shots that we are all taking now...?

 

I have no trouble using the EVF on my Olympus E-P2 to get the best focus with any of my M lenses, including my Noct.

 

...then you are clearly a far better man than I am. I found it almost impossible to use M lenses on my E-P1; the faff and fiddle to focus combined with the disorientation caused by the magnified view was more inclined to induce motion sickness than decent photography.

 

Firstly, it is easy to get excellent focus with the E-P2 and ANY M lens. I can get pinpoint focus with my Noct at f2, for example, something I can't do with any of my M bodies.

 

My experience is exactly the opposite. Are you seriously saying that you cannot focus a 50mm lens at f2 on any of your M bodies...?

 

All I want is to see reasonable use of modern technology to make future Leicas even more useful.

 

...the key word being "reasonable"...

 

Keeping everything completely old school forever is, to me, a BAD idea.

 

No argument there...

 

I think Leica will always offer a big helping of old school with new technology so I'm not too worried about that.

 

Frankly, neither am I. What bothers me is simply the oft-repeated assumptions that "new" is "better", that "we" all want the same things and that bloatware additions can be "ignored" or "turned off" by those who do not want them.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[ohnri]

Never mind then Bill. we shall have to agree to disagree.

I am always happy to look and share actual examples to illustrate opinions and viewpoints though.

 

I agree.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[ohnri]

So does any SLR camera, if the M isn't right for you, you don't have to use it, there are other options out there.

 

Been using Leica RF for a long time. I have no problem using them to their potential. I just want additional progress.

 

Thanks for the useful info though.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[ohnri]

I want to see progress too, but not ill-conceived, "me-too" bloatware. The M camera line has had "truly accurate focus" for the past 60 years...

 

 

 

Nobody wants to watch Leica fall behind again. Nor do I expect them to. But they draw strength from their uniqueness. Not everyone wants the same.

 

 

 

I have also shot with Olympus E-520 and E-P1. I tried live view with both those systems and found it to be a gimmick that did nothing to improve focus accuracy.

 

 

 

No focussing method is perfect. But adding bloatware is not an answer. Saying it over and over again may convince you but it does not convince us.

 

 

 

...a big step forward from where, exactly? All those fuzzy, out of focus shots that we are all taking now...?

 

 

 

...then you are clearly a far better man than I am. I found it almost impossible to use M lenses on my E-P1; the faff and fiddle to focus combined with the disorientation caused by the magnified view was more inclined to induce motion sickness than decent photography.

 

 

 

My experience is exactly the opposite. Are you seriously saying that you cannot focus a 50mm lens at f2 on any of your M bodies...?

 

 

 

...the key word being "reasonable"...

 

 

 

No argument there...

 

 

 

Frankly, neither am I. What bothers me is simply the oft-repeated assumptions that "new" is "better", that "we" all want the same things and that bloatware additions can be "ignored" or "turned off" by those who do not want them.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

I am not assuming we all want the same thing any more than you.

 

Sorry to hear you are unable to use live view to it's full potential.

 

If you think that focus problems are non-existant on the M system then you have been living a sheltered life. Poor lens and body calibration as well as focus shift plague the M system. To deny this is not reasonable.

 

I will repeat for a final time that I really enjoy shooting with a RF and obtain wonderful results. Some of my most popular photos have been taken with Leica RF's.

 

I believe the time to bow out of this thread has arrived.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[pico]

[...]

Conclusion,

It is near impossible to keep situational awareness while focusing using a enlarged focus patch.

 

The GH2 have what is supposed to be the best EVF available (or at least the best I have seen) I find it near impossible to acquire perfect focus on the resolution of the screen.

 

The G1 has the same EVF. I am using mine with the 25mm F/.95 lens now. It is absurd to use the magnified view for the reason you gave above, but necessary with this stupid, ill-conceived camera. I am donating the camera and lenses to my soon-to-be former employer.

 

IMHO, after using Leica Ms since 1965, I don't see the frame lines anymore. They are there, they guide, but I do not see 'clutter' and I don't spend a lot of time focusing. It seems that those who are obsessed with the viewfinder simply are inexperienced or have a personality not suitable to rangefinder cameras.

 

In a strange way I am glad I'm old and won't have to morn when Leica drops the M series camera. It's been so good for so long. All those wishing that Leica would compete directly with the huge Asian auto-everything folks are deluded. Just get off the boat, swim to shore and buy one of them, then shut up.

[aymoon]

I use magnified view very often for critical focusing... especially with the Canon 17 and 24 TS-E lenses. The old approach of thinking that the depth of field will cover the focusing error does not cut it now that I routinely examine the image at 100% on a high quality monitor. I use magnified live view hand held and when working on a tripod. I have also found live view to work well in low light and with stopped down lenses. Yes sometimes the image has some noise when it is dark, but the magnified live view will still assist for precise focusing. This is much much better than any other method in low light.

 

I agree with this 100%... most people I have spoken to who use the GF1 don't even know how to get the magnified view (giving pixel for pixel resolution on the screen) whilst using M lenses on it, thus they try to focus using a low resolution preview of the entire image, which is pretty useless. Anyone who has used a properly 'magnified' EVF can testify that it is arguably THE most effective way to critically focus an image as intended, and as new technology goes this is something to be embraced. Of course, on the other hand, this is only really useful when there is time to work in this way, and isn't any good for 'shooting from the hip', which many M users like to do. For studio work, still life, landscape etc. however, it is priceless.

 

EDIT: I should reiterate that I do LOVE my rangefinder.... genuinely love it. It's just that under certain circumstances, the benefits of a well implemented EVF are clear, and I do sometimes wish that I could combine the wonders of my M lenses with the beauty of the M9 chip... with an EVF as good as the GF1s. My honest opinion. I would still like to keep the rangefinder for all other situations though. I'm not saying the M9 should have an EVF... rather, there could be another FF system which uses M glass with EVF functionality. Then I would gladly own and carry two separate digital cameras if i could afford it.

 

Horses for courses, as they say.

[pico]

I agree with this 100%... most people I have spoken to who use the GF1 don't even know how to get the magnified view (giving pixel for pixel resolution on the screen) whilst using M lenses on it, thus they try to focus using a low resolution preview of the entire image, which is pretty useless. Anyone who has used a properly 'magnified' EVF can testify that it is arguably THE most effective way to critically focus an image as intended, and as new technology goes this is something to be embraced. Of course, on the other hand, this is only really useful when there is time to work in this way, and isn't any good for 'shooting from the hip', which many M users like to do. For studio work, still life, landscape etc. however, it is priceless.

 

Horses for courses, as they say.

 

Of course. But using a 35mm rangefinder in situations requiring studio-like apparatus is just silly. Man-up and use a larger format camera.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[aymoon]

Of course. But using a 35mm rangefinder in situations requiring studio-like apparatus is just silly. Man-up and use a larger format camera.

 

not really... it's just a choice. Studio could mean a 4000 sq.ft. space on a million dollar shoot with 40 staff. Or it could be a small room in your home with controlled lighting. I've never done the former for still shots, so I have no need to invest in a larger format stills camera. I like the portability and usability of my Leica, hence why I'm sticking with it. I love the simplicity of it. But I cannot deny the usefulness and accuracy of a well implemented live-view EVF under certain circumstances either. To my amazement, the GF1 does it way better than my D3, so it doesn't have to be something that breaks the bank.

 

Should it be on the M9? I don't think so. Should there be another compact body that does this with FF and M-lens compatibility? I hope so! But I doubt it will come from Leica.

[AlanG]

Of course. But using a 35mm rangefinder in situations requiring studio-like apparatus is just silly. Man-up and use a larger format camera.

 

I used to travel to my assignments with a 4x5 system (two cameras and 12 lenses plus roll film backs.) I'd also generally bring a 6x6 system and 6 lenses along with 35mm gear. Sometimes I brought along other specialized cameras. Now I am doing all of my work with one 35mm system and with less lighting gear and accessories too. I never expected 35mm systems to be this good and this versatile, but it happened. This is progress for me. I don't have any masculinity issues to prove to anyone.

 

If the lack of live view in the Leica reduces its usefulness and versatility for some photographers to the point that they will need to take an additional 35mm DSLR system with them, I'm afraid they are likely not to get the Leica at all.