Viewfinder options, so many, which to choose and why?

[cernobila]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I grew up on Leicas, IIIf, M2 and M3, with a bunch of M lenses and bellows/viewfinder.

When I started a family, had to sell the lot (except the IIIf) because we were short of money. (the only reason to sell Leicas) Since then I used various reflex cameras and recently a small variety of digital cameras.

I am quite aware of the pros/cons of rangefinder and reflex systems, as well as today’s LCD screens, both fixed and tiltable/fold out versions.

To be honest, I have not used a classic rangefinder OVF for a very long time and rarely use the reflex OVF on my digital reflex cameras, only when using strong tele lenses. I have become a great fan of the tiltable/fold out screens and most of my better work has been taken using this viewing system.

I do not understand why there is such a longing to go back to the classic rangefinder system as on the M bodies. Why restrict yourself to sticking a camera to your face in order to frame a picture. I understand that many a great photographs have been shot from the "hip" so to speak using guess work to frame the picture as well as pre-setting the focus ring.....even guessing the exposure just from experience.

So, why restrict ourselves to a mechanical/electronic rangefinder system adding cost, size and weight to the camera, when we should take advantage of today’s technology to give us smaller, lighter, cheaper equipment that also allows us more flexibility as well.

[jaapv]

I don't see a problem there. There is a whole world of other systems out there, by many reputable builders, for those that prefer those systems. So that part of the market is open to any customer that cares for it. However, an optical rangefinder-viewfinder is made by just one specialized company for a relatively small group of customers that prefer that system. That is called a niche product.

[freusen]

............however, an optical rangefinder-viewfinder is made by just one specialized company for a relatively small group of customers that prefer that system...........

 

+1

___________

FrankR

[bill]

I do not understand why there is such a longing to go back to the classic rangefinder system as on the M bodies. Why restrict yourself to sticking a camera to your face in order to frame a picture. I understand that many a great photographs have been shot from the "hip" so to speak using guess work to frame the picture as well as pre-setting the focus ring.....even guessing the exposure just from experience.

 

So, why restrict ourselves to a mechanical/electronic rangefinder system adding cost, size and weight to the camera, when we should take advantage of today’s technology to give us smaller, lighter, cheaper equipment that also allows us more flexibility as well.

 

To each their own. Personally I cannot think of anything worse than relying upon a teeny tiny tv screen.

 

Rangefound: A room with a view?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[earleygallery]

I for one much prefer viewing 'real time' be it with my Leica or one of my other cameras. The only camera I have without a viewfinder is my small digicam, oh and my panoramic pinhole camera!

 

I can see the benefits of using the LCD as a viewfinder in some situations, low/high level positions etc., but I've tried EVF's on still cameras and personally I hate them, it just feels wrong.

 

Give me an optical viewfinder any day.

[cernobila]

I don't see a problem there. There is a whole world of other systems out there, by many reputable builders, for those that prefer those systems. So that part of the market is open to any customer that cares for it. However, an optical rangefinder-viewfinder is made by just one specialized company for a relatively small group of customers that prefer that system. That is called a niche product.

 

I did not realise that Leica was/is the only maker making "optical rangefinder-viewfinder" cameras. If Leica is a niche company, why bother with the X1, V Lux 20 and the D Lux 5......all with the Leica badge on them. I think there is room for both, the traditional classic design from the past for those that want it.....and truly modern, progressive approach that will leave the other "today's" designs behind.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...I do not understand why there is such a longing to go back to the classic rangefinder system as on the M bodies...

....I think there is room for both...

So you do understand why there is such a 'longing' don't you.

[cernobila]

So you do understand why there is such a 'longing' don't you.

 

Well, yes and no......from the collectors/historians point of view, I understand that enthusiasts want to keep the M bodies going for ever and continue to fine tune the original design......for those, Leica keeps these cameras going (M1 - M9)

 

The original camera was based around the 35mm film, on one side the film, in the middle the shutter, and on the other side the take-up spool, above it all the viewfinder.

 

This is not where it should stop, in all other aspects of life, changes happen and mostly for the better.

 

There are so many possibilities in camera design that it would be a shame for a great company making first class products to be stuck only in the past, or simply re-badge other manufacturers designs and call them their own. (btw, I have and enjoy using the V Lux 20 and D Lux 5)

 

So yes, there is room for both, while Leica is taking care of the past very well, perhaps it should not be afraid put more effort in to the future. You never know, perhaps even the traditionalists may be impressed.

 

PS. If Leica was born today, I wonder what it would look like.....

[lct]

You don't get it i think. Most 'traditionalists' here are using 'modern' cameras as well, p&s, dslrs and so on. If they (we) still like the good old rangefinder there are some good reasons... unless you think that we are all gaga of course.

[AlanG]

A good 4x5 twin lens Leica reflex would be a nice step up from the S2 and could have waist level and reflex viewing.

 

Canon already makes an 8"x8" CMOS sensor, so a 4x5 one should be easy to get and although may be expensive, what is new about that for Leica? Since it is CMOS, maybe it can have live view too.

 

Canon develops world's largest CMOS sensor: Digital Photography Review

[diogenis]

I do not understand why there is such a longing to go back to the classic rangefinder system as on the M bodies. Why restrict yourself to sticking a camera to your face in order to frame a picture. I understand that many a great photographs have been shot from the "hip" so to speak using guess work to frame the picture as well as pre-setting the focus ring.....even guessing the exposure just from experience. [/font][/color]

So, why restrict ourselves to a mechanical/electronic rangefinder system adding cost, size and weight to the camera, when we should take advantage of today’s technology to give us smaller, lighter, cheaper equipment that also allows us more flexibility as well.

 

Ehm, you got it wrong:

 

First of all, the design of a Leica M is such, that when you bring the camera to your face to look at its VF, you also stabilize it with one more point (that of your eye, forehead) added to the other 2 points (your hands). Which means that now, you can take shots at really low speeds.

 

Next, that optical VF is unequalled in performance to an LCD. The LCD will never be able to match the optical in performance in light or dark. Even if the EVF gets an LCD with 50mpixels. Why? Because the optical VF already uses the maximum you can experience: your eyes. The LCD screen can only hope to match this -if ever-

 

And last, size and weight of a Leica is ages ahead a decent dSLR: 2-3 times less their size/weight. Where did you found lighter equipment in the dSLR world???

[Paul Verrips]

If Leica is a niche company, why bother with the X1, V Lux 20 and the D Lux 5......all with the Leica badge on them. I think there is room for both, the traditional classic design from the past for those that want it.....and truly modern, progressive approach that will leave the other "today's" designs behind.

 

Why are you trying to convince us that Leica needs to have that "progressive approach"?

 

If you want a "modern" camera, you can buy lots of other brands, it only has no Leica badge.

 

I think the Leica compacts are more for the consumers and the M & S are more for the prosumers and professionals. So every type of Leica camera has it's own market approach.

 

p.s. Leica isn't born today, you can't change history.

[AlanG]

 

Next, that optical VF is unequalled in performance to an LCD. The LCD will never be able to match the optical in performance in light or dark.

 

EVFs can amplify the light so they can provide a brighter view under dim lighting than an optical viewfinder can provide. I would never say "never."

 

The main difference with using an optical viewfinder vs. an EVF is that with an optical viewfinder, you will use the entire capability of your vision to see an extremely wide dynamic range - detail in shadows and highlights as your vision quickly adjusts depending on where you look. The dynamic range on an EVF is much more limited and the camera will have to quickly adjust the display to update the exposure to compensate for this deficiency. But it can only adjust the exposure across the entire scene, it can't adjust the exposure locally, e.g. for a blown out window. At least it can't do this yet.

 

I think the resolution of an EVF is already adequate for many uses, plus one can magnify the view on an EVF. An EVF can be at eye level, articulated, or anywhere the designer wishes to place it... even off the camera via a cord or wireless system. The same with an LCD panel of any size and resolution.

 

There are pluses and minus to both methods. Consider that some wide lenses on a rangefinder require an auxiliary finder and long lenses require either an auxiliary finder or for the main viewfinder to be cropped to a relatively small area. Then there is parallax.

 

Incorporating live view technology into the M would certainly give users additional options for viewing. It isn't an either/or situation.

 

Here is how live view can show a bright image in a dim room. But note that the view out the window is blown out. Your eyes would automatically compensate for this and see detail outside if you used an optical viewfinder, just as you would normally see things. The same is true if you use an SLR or any other ground glass viewing system. On the other hand, the live view image provides a closer preview to how the camera can record the scene so you can have a full time live idea of whether the scene will fit within the camera's dynamic range.

 

 

This is a crop of the above image, not a tight shot of the screen. So it does not reflect the detail of the LCD.

 

[diogenis]

So what? The EVF can view in the dark and?

I can take it even further and say that you can make an EVF that can see items in pitch black so? How is that matter a photographer? Back to the basics Alan, PHOTOgraphy, photo=light without it you don't have photography...

 

Parallax and framing are really secondary issues that have been solved from experienced users.

 

EVF is far from an adequate solution, far far from it. Maybe you can use one to zoom, magnify, see in the dark or play pong with it, but you won't be able to shoot better pictures. For better pictures you need Leica's OVF. For Pacman®, Pong® and other "specialties" you need EVF.

[AlanG]

So what? The EVF can view in the dark and?

I can take it even further and say that you can make an EVF that can see items in pitch black so? How is that matter a photographer? Back to the basics Alan, PHOTOgraphy, photo=light without it you don't have photography...

 

Parallax and framing are really secondary issues that have been solved from experienced users.

 

EVF is far from an adequate solution, far far from it. Maybe you can use one to zoom, magnify, see in the dark or play pong with it, but you won't be able to shoot better pictures. For better pictures you need Leica's OVF. For Pacman®, Pong® and other "specialties" you need EVF.

 

I think you are putting us on. But in case you aren't... Sometimes one may get "better pictures" with Leica's OVF, and sometimes another method of framing and focusing will make "better pictures."

 

I hate getting into any kind of discussion with you Diogenis because it is stressful and never goes anywhere. You can't seem to clarify a position and you always use bad analogies and strained associations emphasized with fractured logic. And if you reply to me in the same way again, this will certainly be my last post on this thread.

 

I will only say that I am a commercial advertising photographer who shoots a lot of architectural images. I have found live view to be very very useful to me the past two years. If you don't see the value in it, so be it. I really don't care.

[diogenis]

Well, I try in any way I can, but you just insist don't you?

Last questions then and I quit: if an EVF is more appropriate than OVF, then why dSLRs include an OVF which also is inferior to Leica's?

Why try so hard with all the weight and manufacturing cost for prisms, mechanical complexity and more, when you can simply has one EVF. Why are we seeing commercial photographers as you say, paparazzis and more and achitectural ones all shooting via OVFs?

[giordano]

Well, I try in any way I can, but you just insist don't you?

Last questions then and I quit: if an EVF is more appropriate than OVF, then why dSLRs include an OVF which also is inferior to Leica's?

Why try so hard with all the weight and manufacturing cost for prisms, mechanical complexity and more, when you can simply has one EVF. Why are we seeing commercial photographers as you say, paparazzis and more and achitectural ones all shooting via OVFs?

 

Alan just said that sometimes he prefers other kinds of viewfinder to the Leica's, and that for architectural photography he finds live view "very very useful". You're pretending he said that electronic viewfinders are "more appropriate" for all uses. Either you are a troll or your understanding is defective.

[cernobila]

The original question was, "Viewfinder options, so many, which to choose and why?" All that was asked for was an individuals choice and the reason behind it. There is no need to criticise other peoples preferences.

 

some of the choices again.....

 

rangefinder without focusing (viewfinder)

rangefinder with focusing (good for standard lenses)

Reflex systems large and small (looking through the lens, good for larger lens work)

Optical focus screens (on medium to larger cameras, with or without magnification)

Electronic (mainly LCD screens)

 

Having been brought up on using viewfinder/rangefinder/reflex Leicas as well as plate cameras in the 1970's, I do have an opinion on what I prefer to use in the last five years. It would be interesting to hear more opinions and choices from others here without the emotional flavouring.

 

I pay great respect to those here that are far more knowledgeable and experienced photographers than myself and will take on board their wisdom.

[bill]

*sigh*

 

We have been here before.

 

Many times.

 

You two represent different ends of the spectrum in terms of your wants, needs and expectations. Worse, you are left- and right- brained in your arguments respectively.

 

Let me have a go. I have LTM and M Leicas, digicams with EVF and rear screen. I also have an SLR with a mirror pentaprism.

 

Of all of them I prefer the M method of viewing my subject. It is direct, immediate and there are no electronics or mirrors in between. What I see is not just what I get, it is where I am. Undiluted, uninterpreted, unalloyed. I will use a rear screen if I have to, but prefer a direct vision optical viewfinder. This is true to the extent that I have a SBOOI permanently mounted on my D-Lux 4 and the screen turned off by default. If the X2 had a built-in viewfinder and a 40mm lens - was in effect a digital CM - I would be first in the queue. If it sticks with the rear screen I shall continue to ignore it. If the M10 offers a hybrid viewfinder like the X100 I shall run a mile.

 

The only time I like a screen is when I can use the composition gridlines to check verticals and horizontals - I think I must have one leg slightly shorter than the other in that I consistently have a .5 degree rotation to the right that I have to correct in Photoshop. But, hey, I can use the framelines in my M viewfinder for the same purpose, so I don't even need electronics for that...

 

I do not want a viewfinder that lights up dark surroundings like night-vision goggles. I can think of nothing worse. I want my eyes to accustom themselves to the ambient light. I don't want my viewfinder afterimage burned into my retina when I look away. I don't want my face illuminated by it's brightness, attracting attention. I want to see and photograph what my eye sees. The direct, clear viewfinder found in the Leica M gives me that. Anything else is a retrograde step.

 

Bottom line - some of us prefer to see the subject au naturel, some of us prefer to view it on a screen. As long as there is always the option, I really don't care. What I care about is those who assume - and claim - that electronics have rendered the direct vision viewfinder redundant.

 

Not yet they haven't.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[diogenis]

some of the choices again.....

 

rangefinder without focusing (viewfinder)

rangefinder with focusing (good for standard lenses)

Reflex systems large and small (looking through the lens, good for larger lens work)

Optical focus screens (on medium to larger cameras, with or without magnification)

Electronic (mainly LCD screens)

 

I prefer Leicas OVF as it is given using it's x0.69 magnification. x1.4 mag for long lenses (75mm)

Prism OVF as in a SLR I don't like, because they give darker, tunnel vision like, interrupted vision from the mirror slapping.

Electronic VF a-la LCD suck. Just not there yet technologically. Issues under bright daylight where you cant see, more issues at night with their very bright annunciators killing night vision.