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

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let me simply add this to the discussion:

 

Here is my portfolio of architectural images. I don't know how they compare to Alan's (well, actually, I think I do, but I won't post a link to his work without permission, since he has chosen not to do so himself. I respect Web privacy)

 

EVERY picture in this portfolio was made with a Leica digital M. Generally with an "oh-so-nasty" accessory finder, since I shot with a 21 or equivalent for most of these. None with an EVF or Live-View - and I never, ever, felt any discomfort, or disability, due to not having that "functionality."

 

I DID use one other accessory, however - the gray one between my ears. If one THINKS about what one is doing, the M optical viewfinder(s) are capable of taking on almost any task.

 

andypiper - PORTFOLIOS - ARCHITECTURE

 

In a slightly different vein, every one of the pictures in THIS portfolio also were also taken with an M8 or M9.

 

andypiper - PORTFOLIOS - STUDIO

 

For some people, "easy" and "versatile" come built into the camera. For others, "easy" and "versatile" come built into the photographer.

 

Andrew, your pictures are excellent. And I too have shot a lot of nice architectural images with a variety of cameras. But it doesn't look as if you have to photograph the same situations that I have to photograph and thus don't have the same needs. Such as tight interiors and subjects that require a rise and fall on the lenses. I do not want to spend the time to remove the convergence or straighten a lot of images in post. And I also am interested in working efficiently with electronic flash on interiors so I shoot those tethered. Additionally, I need to shoot some tight details that require long lenses.

 

How many times was your camera up against a wall or in a weird location and you couldn't even get behind it? This happens to me on almost every interior shoot. In the old days, I'd often have to shoot some Polaroids just to aim my camera in these situations. Now I use either an angled finder, live view or video out to a small screen. It is simply a more efficient way to work.

 

For what it's worth, here is a link to some of my galleries. The top one is mostly residential and the one below that is mostly commercial. I think anyone who looks at them will see that I have to cover a fairly wide range of angles. For instance, builders may really want to show the overall space and size. And interior designers may be more concerned with details.

 

http://alangoldstein.photoshelter.com/

 

And for years I did shoot without having live view or even the ability to shoot tethered. And of course I could do that today too. But I'd rather not. A lot of what I'm trying to do can be accomplished in other ways. But I'm often looking for the most efficient way to accomplish it.

[adan]

Thanks, Alan. I do understand that your approach is essentially "view camera" - regardless of the sensor size or actual gear used., and that live-view is in your case just a modern update to the 4x5 screen (without having to stand on your head )

 

I guess - also coming from the era when there were a couple of dozen (at least) camera "styles" - I just don't see the need for all cameras to fit a common model or uniform set of features.

 

I like a world with diversity - Rollei TLRs and Nikon SLRs and Hassy MFSLRs and Leica RFs and 8x10 Deardorffs and Koni-Omegas RFs (and also Canonets and Brownies and Polaroid Swingers for the casual family snapshooter). All of them were good for something - none of them was good for everything. And I had, and have, no problem with that. I never asked why Leica didn't make an 8 x 10 or Deardorff didn't make a 35mm rangefinder.

 

I abandoned SLRs when they quit offering split-image screens. So I understand if some will abandon/avoid Leica because they don't offer live-view.

 

I doubt Nikon misses me because I quit using them, and I doubt Leica will miss any customers because they don't want to use a coupled rangefinder/viewfinder.

[AlanG]

Thanks, Alan. I do understand that your approach is essentially "view camera" - regardless of the sensor size or actual gear used., and that live-view is in your case just a modern update to the 4x5 screen (without having to stand on your head )

 

I guess - also coming from the era when there were a couple of dozen (at least) camera "styles" - I just don't see the need for all cameras to fit a common model or uniform set of features.

 

I like a world with diversity - Rollei TLRs and Nikon SLRs and Hassy MFSLRs and Leica RFs and 8x10 Deardorffs and Koni-Omegas RFs (and also Canonets and Brownies and Polaroid Swingers for the casual family snapshooter). All of them were good for something - none of them was good for everything. And I had, and have, no problem with that. I never asked why Leica didn't make an 8 x 10 or Deardorff didn't make a 35mm rangefinder.

 

I abandoned SLRs when they quit offering split-image screens. So I understand if some will abandon/avoid Leica because they don't offer live-view.

 

I doubt Nikon misses me because I quit using them, and I doubt Leica will miss any customers because they don't want to use a coupled rangefinder/viewfinder.

 

I basically went from using several systems and some specialized cameras to one system and a few p&s cameras. In the past, 35mm systems were not complete enough or good enough for the majority for the work I did. Keep in mind that DXO Optics Pro makes all of my lenses distortion free and eliminates most other defects too. So I often get "better" results than I did with a view camera and film. (Not necessarily as detailed, but sometimes the additional depth of field from the 35mm format helps too.)

 

I probably look at this Leica situation a bit differently than the majority of others here. I mostly look at the capability, not the tradition, build quality, lens design, etc. Since the mid 60s, Leica has stuck to a more "traditional" approach that has resulted in their cameras moving somewhat away from professional tools to objects that are craved by some enthusiasts and collectors. (Not that they don't make good pictures with them.) And at the same time, the overall range and the capability of the system has declined. I presume they had to make hard choices at what would sell and what would not. (Considering the competition from SLRs.)

 

Now maybe this has worked out OK for Leica and is the best approach for them at the moment despite numerous stumbles. But I remember when the main point of Leica was to supply a wider range of solutions for photographers. To that end, it seems to me that the mere addition of live view and a clip on EVF (even if it is not close to as clear as using an OVF) would go a long way towards opening the door to a much more complete system again. Considering that we are now working with digital files and computerized cameras I don't see why Leica should not fully embrace everything that technology can do to help us make better pictures or work more efficiently. But should they also have to worry that their main user base doesn't want to move on?

 

It once was traditional to load film and wait to see your images too. How quaint does that seem to most people today? Do you suppose there is a way to post on this forum without embracing computerized technology?

[pop]

... the mere addition of live view and a clip on EVF (even if it is not close to as clear as using an OVF) would go a long way (...) Do you suppose there is a way to post on this forum without embracing computerized technology?

 

Thanks for making me laugh.

 

I would venture to guess that a rather large part of the people who actively prefer cameras with optical range finders have a much better grasp of technology - including IT - than you demonstrate here.

[andybarton]

I really like your interior shots, Andy.

[cernobila]

I doubt Nikon misses me because I quit using them, and I doubt Leica will miss any customers because they don't want to use a coupled rangefinder/viewfinder.

 

I don't think this is as simple as that. Companies do not like loosing established customers, if I were to tell one brand that I will no longer use their product they would want to know why, followed by a question.....what can we do to bring you back. If my requests were reasonable and I was not alone, they would try to satisfy my/our expectations so we will again carry a product with their name on it, telling the rest of the world.....this is my choice, it should be yours.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for making me laugh.

 

I would venture to guess that a rather large part of the people who actively prefer cameras with optical range finders have a much better grasp of technology - including IT - than you demonstrate here.

 

I didn't comment if the users had a "grasp" of technology. I said, "I don't see why Leica should not fully embrace everything that technology can do to help us make better pictures or work more efficiently." Clearly when it comes to those on this forum, some reject technology so much they say they don't even want an LCD on their camera. That can be for any reason including from deep knowledge about it let alone grasp of it. Should it not have been included because X number of users didn't want an LCD for reviewing pictures? If you don't want to review your pictures, you don't have to. There is a choice.

 

What does having a choice of both live view and a rangefinder have to do with preferring rangefinders? I would still want to have the capability of live view even if I might only use it 1% of the time. When I was in high school, I used a Nikon F at eye level the vast majority of the time, but it still was very handy to pop the prism off and shoot at waist level, low or high occasionally.

 

I think once a camera has a new feature some people tend to use it more than they would have expected. Live view certainly wasn't a feature that I demanded or anticipated a few years ago. Since DSLRs already had through the lens viewing, it took me a while to see how useful it could be.

 

And back in 1990, I wasn't exactly anticipating digital photography either and all of the possibilities it would open up. But I did have a 45 degree reflex finder that fit on my view camera in order to have a choice of viewing methods.

 

If all the current Leica M users and potential users don't feel there is any possible limitation in having only one way of viewing with the camera, then there is absolutely no reason for Leica to ever consider adding live view. Anything short of this and there is at least a very very tiny reason.

[diogenis]

Superb work Andy, really super!

[adan]

Cernobila - I can tell you I had numerous discussions with Nikon reps and NPS at shows and NPPA programs and workshops during the years (early 90s - after using Nikons since 1974) when they were auto-focus-izing their cameras (no more microprism/split screens except for the massive F4/5s) - and their repeated response was basically a polite version of a middle finger.

 

"We don't think that's important. We're Nikon and we know best." - almost verbatim

 

And all I wanted was a crummy $20 plastic focusing screen as an option. Not a major revision of the cameras' insides.

 

Unlike so many on this forum - I didn't decide it should be my mission in life to explain to Nikon what was wrong with their cameras or their business plan. I just bought something else.

 

(again, Thank God for diversity and camera makers who don't all do the same thing.)

[cernobila]

I think once a camera has a new feature some people tend to use it more than they would have expected. Live view certainly wasn't a feature that I demanded or anticipated a few years ago. Since DSLRs already had through the lens viewing, it took me a while to see how useful it could be.

 

I think that most people tend to have an open mind to new ways of doing things and thats how we progress. I was brought up on the Leica M system, rangefinder and reflex/bellows then the various reflex cameras including the Leicaflex SL2.....then a long gap of no photography......then thrown into digital cameras. Its because I had a very long rest that when I started again, I had an open mind to what ever was the new way of doing things.....the first camera had the flip out live view screen, I got used to using it and that was that. I am sure that if the next "you beaut" camera had a rangefinder as well, I am sure I would use it where appropriate.

[AlanG]

 

"We don't think that's important. We're Nikon and we know best." - almost verbatim

 

 

Some newer cameras may have incompatibility with split image and their metering or AF systems. That is where they set their priorities.

 

I believe there are third party split screens for various cameras.

 

Many people probably rely on AF focus confirmation lights and beep or magnified live view when focusing manually.

[adan]

Alan, I'm sure Nikon had their reasons*. I was just responding to the OP's statement:

 

"....if I were to tell one brand that I will no longer use their product they would want to know why, followed by a question.....what can we do to bring you back."

 

He was wrong. Nikon did not ask me "what can we do to bring you back..."

_______________________

 

*although, back in the Nikon Photomic era when they had a dozen or so screens, they got around the metering issue by simply listing exposure compensations to be used with different screens.

[andybarton]

Nikon couldn't give a monkey's whether an individual uses their product or not.

[cernobila]

Nikon couldn't give a monkey's whether an individual uses their product or not.

 

This reminds me of the days when I was working in my fathers photographic retail store in the 1970's. There was this one particular distributor/importer (representing a brand) that was quite arrogant, they made demands to retailers not to carry certain other brands if they wanted to carry theirs, even though their reliability and service was below par. We had no problem selling other brands, so we ignored their request.......

 

I believe that companies do care, but only if enough customers speak up with genuine realistic comments and requests.

[AlanG]

Nikon couldn't give a monkey's whether an individual uses their product or not.

 

I can't say if this is true or not. But considering all the features that have been added to Nikon cameras in recent years, I figure some must be a result of user suggestions. According to Bruce Dale, at one time Nikon was very interested in user feedback. From his web site:

 

"Over the years my equipment has gotten better. When I signed on with the Geographic, I was told I could have anything within reason and one thing not within reason. I was using Leica cameras at the Toledo Blade newspaper where I had been working and wanted to continue with them. Bud Wisherd, who was in charge of the equipment at that time, gave me a Nikon F which he suggested I try. I took it and used it primarily for close-ups and extra long lens shots. Eventually I had two systems. Nikons got better. I vividly recall a row of engineers from Nikon sitting and taking notes about what we liked and didn't like about their cameras. We'd make a comment such as "the rewind lever is too sharp and cuts our finger." A year later, the new model came out with a broader rewind lever with the end covered with plastic. (I think he means the film advance lever.) The engineers would be back and would ask, "Here is our new camera, how you like it?" And year after year, the cameras would improve. Nikon's competitors brought their new models too but with the attitude, "Here is our new camera, you will like it."

 

Eventually, I switched to Nikon and use them for virtually all my work."

 

I would expect that most camera companies rely on user feedback. Every time I've seen a rep. from Sony I tell them that the Nex cameras need an EVF. They agree with me and say they have heard that from many others. I expect to see an EVF for the Nex 5 or a new model that uses one before long. The next time I see a Leica rep. I think I'll suggest they add live view and an EVF to the M and see what they say.

 

Since the Nikon F6 can use split screens and the D3 cannot, there may be more to this than we know. And there seem to be third party split screens that may have some issues. I don't think the reason Nikon is not making split screens for these cameras is because they don't care about their users. They probably would if they could.

 

Nikon split screen discussion:

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UlJI

[adan]

Alan - seems to me you are willing to cut Nikon a lot of slack with hypothetical excuses, while not granting Leica the same privilege.

 

Try - "There may be more to (live-view not being a good idea for M cameras) than we know."

 

Bruce Dale signed on with Nat. Geo. in 1964. I'm not sure what Nikon was doing 47 years ago (when heavily under the influence of US marketer Joe Ehrenreich, RIP) is any reflection of the corporate culture today. Nikon bought out Ehrenreich Photo-Optical Industries after Joe's death in 1973, so they've been following their own path for close to 40 years.

 

But by all means take up live-view with Leica if you get the opportunity.

[AlanG]

I think it is clear that Leica listened to a lot of people when making the S2. They modified it after demoing it to users at quite a few shows for around two years. I know because I was one who looked at the first incarnation at Photo Expo and made some suggestions about that thumb wheel along with similar views of many others. I believe they changed it based on photographers' feedback so it could be pressed in to lock settings. And I bet it was user feedback that helped them decide to make adapters to fit other brands of lenses on to the S2. Has Leica ever done that with any other camera? It took Nikon quite a while to introduce a full frame camera, but that may have been less to do with ignoring user demand than the lack of a suitable sensor that could compete with Canon's.

 

Regarding Leica and German companies in general... I'm sure their attitudes had to change somewhat in order to survive against the competition, but at one time they seemed fairly arrogant to me. I used to use Rollei 6006 cameras and when Kodak introduced Tmax which was on a thicker base, I had a terrible scratching problem. Marflex Service Center solved the problem by filing down some parts of the backs. Martin Arnt, the head of Marflex, told me he reported the problem and solution to Rollei and they told him it was "impossible" for the backs to scratch the film."

 

Linhof and Sinar still make some traditional models but have seen the need to make cameras that are specifically targeted to the needs of professional digital photographers. I don't feel Leica is fully focused on those needs with the M9. I know quite a few working photographers, and I only personally know a single pro shooter who uses the M9. I think there must be some reasons for this other than the price alone since some of them are fairly well to do.

 

I have no idea what Leica has planned for the M but obviously if they are selling everything they can make for that system, they may not be driven by opinions of anyone to change it very much. And that might be the best near term course for Leica despite the usual trend in photography for cameras to adopt features in order to stay competitive. But I bet the lack of live view has nothing to do with user demand or an opinion at Leica that live view would pollute the purity of the M's waters, but more to do with not having suitable live view technology when the M9 was designed. Most German companies seem to love to be at the forefront of technology when possible and the requests from R users is to have some kind of digital solution rather than Leica completely ignoring their needs and their investment in Leica gear.

 

Specifically I think Leica would love to be able to say to R users that they can enjoy their lenses on the M10 via a usable, albeit not perfect EVF. And they probably don't need me or anyone else to remind them.

[gyoung]

Some newer cameras may have incompatibility with split image and their metering or AF systems. That is where they set their priorities.

 

I believe there are third party split screens for various cameras.

 

Many people probably rely on AF focus confirmation lights and beep or magnified live view when focusing manually.

 

I have a Beattie screen in my F90, with a grid and a split image, and the AF is turmed off 90% of the time, works fine.

 

Gerry

[AlanG]

Bruce Dale signed on with Nat. Geo. in 1964. I'm not sure what Nikon was doing 47 years ago (when heavily under the influence of US marketer Joe Ehrenreich, RIP) is any reflection of the corporate culture today. Nikon bought out Ehrenreich Photo-Optical Industries after Joe's death in 1973, so they've been following their own path for close to 40 years.

 

His comments are not from 40 or so years ago but are to explain why he uses the gear he currently shoots with.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Washington]

In my case it was the nostalgia value of being able to use the M again as I did

in my old M’s: having shelved them when digital got so good. Since owning it I have learned much and truly enjoy it for itself quirks, limitations and all.

Perhaps I am similar to a lot of ‘’old guys’’ who have made some money in their

lives a buy the custom hot-rod of their youthful dreams?