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

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I also prefer the bright clean uncluttered screen of an optical viewfinder, both for composition and focusing. LCDs are very hard to use in low light, in fact completely impossible in our bright light, and I find RF is more precise than AF. (Maybe that's just me.)

 

I do think more of us are becoming used to squinting at small screens a few inches from our face; no longer do we spend so much time gazing into the far distance as our ancestors did when hunting for prey. There is even an app for the iphone that lets you look at the screen and projects a picture of where you are walking (a good entry for stupid technology top 10.)

 

Hunching over computers with necks craned forward also encourages bad posture. Perhaps humans are evolving into new strangely shaped computer-dependent creatures shut off from the real world outside. (1980s Punch cover shows a grey, technology-laden room where a kid opens a window to reveal the sole splash of bright color. Caption reads, "Hey, the computer was right -- it's spring!")

[cernobila]

So far good comments..........I take on board the interruption with mirror slapping, and LCD usability in dark or very bright situations, I dislike this myself. One issue that I did not mention in my first post was the need to see what you get when shooting macro or simply very close up. I often get distracted on my walks shooting door handles, flowers, wall textures etc......Does anyone have an issue with parallax compensation using their rangefinders?

[diogenis]

Macro photography not the forte of a RF, mainly for limited focusing. There is a macro 90mm lens available, Leica Camera AG - Photography - LEICA MACRO-ELMAR-M 90 mm f/4.

I don't know if you also need the adapter to take a macro shot with it.

[bill]

.Does anyone have an issue with parallax compensation using their rangefinders?

 

No, because I use the right tool for the job. Macro is not the M's sweet-spot.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

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?

 

Since you seem to ignore what I actually write and merely respond to what you imagine, I suggest you take in this line and contemplate its meaning for a while.

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

 

Lots of other cameras have had direct optical viewfinders along with live view in order to give users a choice depending on circumstances. And in the past there were many cameras that had ground glass viewing along with rangefinders and optical viewfinders. (Including Leica.) Speed Graphics and Linhof Technikas were quite popular. This isn't exactly a new concept.

[wda]

...Why restrict yourself to sticking a camera to your face in order to frame a picture....

Stability! Bracing a camera against the head aids stability. Second, it places the photographer in closer proximity with his/her subject. There is a more intimate connection... a greater sense of involvement or participation. I also see the sense in using live-view as an aid to composition. So, there is not one universal solution. Horses for courses!

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

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've shot a lot of dusk exteriors and dim interiors and have never had a problem with this.

[jaapv]

Si

 

And in the past there were many cameras that had ground glass viewing along with rangefinders and optical viewfinders. (Including Leica.) Speed Graphics and Linhof Technikas were quite popular. This isn't exactly a new concept.

 

That is true

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[bill]

I've shot a lot of dusk exteriors and dim interiors and have never had a problem with this.

 

Me too. And I have had exactly the problem I describe. Your mileage clearly differs. No surprise there

 

I also hate drawing attention to myself due to the illuminated screen. Here is somebody using live view on a DSLR in a darkened bar:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

...see what I mean? Hardly unobtrusive, is it...?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[lct]

[AlanG]

I think the issue is more one of allegiance and philosophy than of logic. Because of the rangefinder/viewfinder, Leica users may form a stronger bond with a particular viewing system than users of some other cameras. Thus having other options may be at odds to what attracted them to the camera in the first place... despite the obvious advantages in having additional choices.

[AlanG]

Me too. And I have had exactly the problem I describe. Your mileage clearly differs. No surprise there

 

I also hate drawing attention to myself due to the illuminated screen. Here is somebody using live view on a DSLR in a darkened bar:

 

 

That won't be an issue with a clip on EVF and you and others surely know this. So why do you insult our intelligence by exaggerating the issue and pretending we are all idiots? Besides, if using the LCD will draw attention in some situations, then use the optical viewfinder for those situations. Just as Speed Graphic users only used the ground glass when appropriate. And why most DSLR users have a choice between eye level and LCD (sometimes an articulating LCD.)

 

I could say that I prefer to shoot from the hip and not draw the attention that a camera at eye level draws. Wingate Paine prefered using waist level cameras because he, "liked to shoot from the gut and not the brain."

 

The way things are going, the M will be one of the few 35mm cameras that does not give users a choice of viewing methods. Consider that at one time, Leica was one of the few 35mm cameras that gave users a choice of optical viewfinder/rangefinder, reflex viewing, and direct ground glass viewing.

[pico]

[...]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.[/font][/color]

 

So get an MD which has no finder at all. Or a Minolta/Leica CL which is very small. Or the Leica V-Lux or X1.

 

But are you that good shooting from the hip? Aside: I am an expert handgun shooter and I shoot 45 ACP exclusively from the hip for shows and bets, but I'd never shoot a photograph the same way - all my subjects would be centered. And OOF.

[bill]

That won't be an issue with a clip on EVF and you and others surely know this. So why do you insult our intelligence by exaggerating the issue and pretending we are all idiots?

 

Alan, it's called "exaggerating for comic effect", also known as "not taking life too seriously". Nobody is going to die over their choice of viewing method. There is no fatwa on the heads of the infidel non-believers. Lighten up - pun intended

 

The way things are going, the M will be one of the few 35mm cameras that does not give users a choice of viewing methods.

 

Good.

 

Let's turn that on it's head, shall we?

 

"The way things are going the M will be one of the few 35mm cameras that offers a simple, uncluttered and direct viewing method."

 

Is that so bad? People will vote with their wallets if so.

 

Consider that at one time, Leica was one of the few 35mm cameras that gave users a choice of optical viewfinder/rangefinder, reflex viewing, and direct ground glass viewing.

 

Consider that Leica aren't in that jack-of-all-trades game now because they cannot make money at it.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

Alan, it's called "exaggerating for comic effect", also known as "not taking life too seriously". Nobody is going to die over their choice of viewing method. There is no fatwa on the heads of the infidel non-believers. Lighten up - pun intended

 

 

 

Good.

 

Let's turn that on it's head, shall we?

 

"The way things are going the M will be one of the few 35mm cameras that offers a simple, uncluttered and direct viewing method."

 

Is that so bad? People will vote with their wallets if so.

 

 

 

Consider that Leica aren't in that jack-of-all-trades game now because they cannot make money at it.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Leica will probably sell a relatively small number of M models no matter what they do. So what does this have to do with the topic? I don't see how offering fewer choices to utilize the camera makes it more appealing. If so, maybe they should ditch the add on viewfinders and the lenses that "require" them too. This will further reduce choices and will keep the viewing and focusing method much simpler. (This is called exaggerating for effect but it clearly illustrates that the system is not perfect by a long shot.)

[bill]

... I don't see how offering fewer choices to utilize the camera makes it more appealing.

 

...no, you wouldn't, and there is the crux of the matter. Simplicity of form and function not only hold no value in your world view, it is unacceptable that anyone should possibly think otherwise. Clearly they are unenlightened and simply need to be told the error of their ways over and over again in order to join the path to LCD enlightenment.

 

Tired of being preached at. I'm out of here.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

...no, you wouldn't, and there is the crux of the matter. Simplicity of form and function not only hold no value in your world view, it is unacceptable that anyone should possibly think otherwise. Clearly they are unenlightened and simply need to be told the error of their ways over and over again in order to join the path to LCD enlightenment.

 

Tired of being preached at. I'm out of here.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

 

And this from the person who used the Frankenstein "analogy."

 

Geez Bill, you sure seem to take all of this kind of personally. I certainly value simplicity of form but not always at the expense of function. Simplicity of form in a camera starts as a pinhole camera with no viewfinder or shutter and then moves up the scale in complexity. At various points along this scale some cameras may be too complex for various people. Unlike your view, with its various viewfinders, lenses, and other accessories, I never saw the Leica as an example of simplicity of form and function. (Surely you have seen the vast range of accessories that Leica has produced over the decades.) But in my opinion, each person is entitled to draw the line wherever they wish.

 

I just don't think one can make generalized statements that keeping features out of a camera makes it "better" or even more simple in operation. As an example, if you wish to shoot an image above your head or down really low, an articulated LCD will make this act much simpler to accomplish than using trial and error, or getting out a ladder, or lying on the ground. But the camera may need to be more complex in order to allow for simple operation.

 

Since live view is common in most digital cameras (especially simple p&s ones) and cell phones, it seems that most people have somehow come to grips with having such a feature. I bet to them it reflects a version of simplicity of form and function. It just depends on how you define it.

[diogenis]

Alan, you will never understand that there are some that hate complications. Not everything is about complications. So claiming that it's not an either/or situation is your assumption and is wrong.

This is not just a matter of adding just another gizmo that you have it for whatever you need it if you ever need it.

It will add weight, draw power, add cost, maybe crash the system.. among other things and all those for diminishing returns. You will never understand that it's not always about having more. Especially if what you have is enough

[AlanG]

Alan, you will never understand that there are some that hate complications. Not everything is about complications. So claiming that it's not an either/or situation is your assumption and is wrong.

This is not just a matter of adding just another gizmo that you have it for whatever you need it if you ever need it.

It will add weight, draw power, add cost, maybe crash the system.. among other things and all those for diminishing returns. You will never understand that it's not always about having more. Especially if what you have is enough

 

I understand that some people hate all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. Some probably hate rangefinders and think of Leica's focusing system as very complex. I do not believe live view will necessarily add weight, drain power, or crash the system as is evidenced by the millions of cameras that have this feature.

 

I can also understand that for some people it is not about adding more. I am not trying to convince them to add or accept more. I am simply discussing the pros and cons of these features and trying to clear up some misconceptions about live view. Additionally, it is my opinion that the Leica system was never about simplicity.

 

Back when I was a kid in the early 70s I worked in my cousin's camera store. We had a large collection of old and new Leica accessories that made me realize that Leica tried to find as many ways as possible to make their cameras useful. And some of Leica's solutions were not that elegant and were perhaps on the kludgy side - Visoflex reflex housings that used double cable releases, lens goggles, various ways to make a polarizer work, Focaslide sliding ground glass back, a lot of microscope interfaces and shutters, unusual solutions for close up photography, etc. Leica also made autofocusing enlargers, copy stands, projectors and specialized cameras. In the 60s they introduced a 35mm reflex system. They made some of the most sophisticated (and very complex) microscopes in the world.

 

Maybe the fact that I was introduced to the Leica system at this stage gives me a different perspective toward it than some have. I first saw it as a versatile system and then watched as the versatility and usefulness of the system faded over time.

 

Leica did early work on auto focusing cameras and digital cameras (scanning back.) So what was so simple about this philosophy? If they had introduced a 10 megapixel AF DSLR or digital rangefinder system back in 1995, would many be singing a different song now? What if the M8 and M9 had live view all along? Would they not have sold as many? Would they have sold more?

 

If the next model of M is very similar to the M9 but has live view and an optional clip on viewfinder, what is the worst thing that will happen? And what is the best thing that will happen?

 

Here is one of those "specialized" cameras at Mark Ehler's pbase gallery. It does not even have a rangefinder or a direct optical viewfinder.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[NZDavid]

Cost. Why do so may digicams have no OVF any more? Because they have to have an LCD and an OVF is seen as just an unnecessary extra cost. EVF? Even the best ones don't match an OVF for clarity, especially in low light -- but features, not quality, is the overriding factor nowadays.