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

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You CLAIM: it's only advantageous in having BOTH OVF and EVF, we say with whatever advantages you get with this, you also have disadvantages.

 

The claims of disadvantages have been pretty weak and so far have not convinced me that they out weigh the advantages. Several of the posts simply rehash how great an optical viewfinder is. Others have made incorrect assumptions about live view and EVFs. And others are making whatever points they are trying to make but somehow are not very clear at all. My point can be boiled down to this:

 

1. Adding live view and a clip-on viewfinder to supplement the optical viewfinder in the M will increase the usefulness of the M.

2. Other companies have figured out how to add live view to their cameras without causing user revolts.

 

The people on this forum who disagree with adding live view to the M will not be able to convince me that the statements above are untrue.

[pop]

1. Adding live view and a clip-on viewfinder to supplement the optical viewfinder in the M will increase the usefulness of the M.

2. Other companies have figured out how to add live view to their cameras without causing user revolts.

 

The people on this forum who disagree with adding live view to the M will not be able to convince me that the statements above are untrue.

 

Statement one might be true for some users, not for others. However, it is at the moment not relevant since there apppears to be no sensors which could be used in the M without reducing the camera's image quality.

 

Statement two is irrelevant. There is no end to the number of things manufacturer are known to have done without causing user revolts. Some have even perished without any user revolt.

[cernobila]

For me to appreciate more fully the differences in the way we view and compose pictures I would like to understand how does the LCD screen work on the Leica M9......what does it do and not do compared to the typical digital camera like the D-Lux 5......I never handled anything other than the old M2 and M3 a long time ago.

 

PS. I guess I am asking why have a LCD screen at all on the M bodies.

[AlanG]

Statement one might be true for some users, not for others. However, it is at the moment not relevant since there apppears to be no sensors which could be used in the M without reducing the camera's image quality.

 

Statement two is irrelevant. There is no end to the number of things manufacturer are known to have done without causing user revolts. Some have even perished without any user revolt.

 

Obviously there would be no point in adding live view if it would reduce the image quality. Why are you arguing this point? We have no way of knowing if Leica is locating or co-developing a suitable sensor. But can I conclude that if Leica finds an equal or superior sensor that will support live view, then adding live view would be OK with you?

 

I'll remind you that one of those that perished was the R system that never did add AF. But specifically, can you show me that significant numbers of Canon, Nikon or Sony users have complained when live view was added to the DSLRs from those companies?

 

From a business standpoint, I contend that given a choice, an M10 with live view and an optional clip on EVF would outsell an otherwise identical M10 that did not have those features as long as it was not too high an increase in price.

[AlanG]

For me to appreciate more fully the differences in the way we view and compose pictures I would like to understand how does the LCD screen work on the Leica M9......what does it do and not do compared to the typical digital camera like the D-Lux 5......I never handled anything other than the old M2 and M3 a long time ago.

 

 

The LCD in the M9 can only be used to review images that were previously captured. It cannot preview the image through the camera lens in real time. If it could, this discussion would not exist.

[pop]

From a business standpoint, I contend that given a choice, an M10 with live view and an optional clip on EVF would outsell an otherwise identical M10 that did not have those features as long as it was not too high an increase in price.

 

I'd think that the market for a very very expensive RF camera with LV or an additional EVF would be rather narrow. I don't see many people who go out of their way to buy M RF cameras perceive a need for an additional EVF. I also don't see people who need EVFs spend that extra amount to buy an RF M body.

 

The EVF fills needs rather similar to the SLR. I'd think an extra body for M lenses without the RF but with an EVF might be the better proposition.

[cernobila]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The LCD in the M9 can only be used to review images that were previously captured. It cannot preview the image through the camera lens in real time. If it could, this discussion would not exist.

 

Thanks for that, this is what I presumed but needed confirmed.

 

So, why have a LCD screen at all, they are obsolete, you really don't need them, why not wait till you get home and plug your camera into the computer (darkroom) and surprise yourself......just like in the old days.

 

Sorry, that was a bit cheeky, no offence meant, but might as well go to the extreme.

[diogenis]

1. Adding live view and a clip-on viewfinder to supplement the optical viewfinder in the M will increase the usefulness of the M.

2. Other companies have figured out how to add live view to their cameras without causing user revolts.

 

The people on this forum who disagree with adding live view to the M will not be able to convince me that the statements above are untrue.

 

So, you are suggesting that the M's OVF is obsolete and will only be complete with an addon EVF.

[andybarton]

This thread is seriously in danger of ending up in "wind up for the sake of it" territory.

Please do not let it do so.

Thanks.

[bill]

For me to appreciate more fully the differences in the way we view and compose pictures I would like to understand how does the LCD screen work on the Leica M9......what does it do and not do compared to the typical digital camera like the D-Lux 5......I never handled anything other than the old M2 and M3 a long time ago.

 

PS. I guess I am asking why have a LCD screen at all on the M bodies.

 

That's a reasonable question. Please bear in mind that the M9 is significantly more complex than the M2 and M3, with many more setup and configuration options. Some are "set and forget" - time and date, for instance - whilst others are often regularly accessed - white balance or ISO. There needs to be some means by which the photographer communicates with the camera and the camera in turn reports the status of everything from battery condition to the number of shots left on the SD card. Later generation, more sophisticated film cameras (a Nikon F100, for instance) relied upon small LCD screens, sometimes more than one, scattered around the camera body and options and configurations were set via "custom functions" - this required the user to carry the manual, or a small laminated card to remind themselves of what "3-0-1" meant

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jaapv]

Thanks for that, this is what I presumed but needed confirmed.

 

So, why have a LCD screen at all, they are obsolete, you really don't need them, why not wait till you get home and plug your camera into the computer (darkroom) and surprise yourself......just like in the old days.

 

Sorry, that was a bit cheeky, no offence meant, but might as well go to the extreme.

That is only valid if one would use the LCD solely for viewing the images. I hardly ever do, except when there is no computer within many miles. But it is needed for setting the parameters of the camera, knowing the battery level and number of shots left on the card and for judging exposure in difficult situations by the way of the histogram.

[pop]

Given that the frame lines are not all that accurate, I occasionally use the display to check if the image contains everything I wanted to be visible. I have to admit, though, that I have not yet much experience with my M type cameras.

[pico]

Thanks for that, this is what I presumed but needed confirmed.

 

So, why have a LCD screen at all, they are obsolete, you really don't need them, why not wait till you get home and plug your camera into the computer (darkroom) and surprise yourself......just like in the old days.

 

Sorry, that was a bit cheeky, no offence meant, but might as well go to the extreme.

 

I would miss the quick and easy features of setting ISO, checking battery and card status and however rarely I use it - one can read the anticipated exposure off the LCD, as if it were something like a spot meter.

 

I am not smart enough to come up with a more elegant means to put all the menu settings from the LCD into the Leica as mechanical buttons. I would imagine the thing would look like a steam-punk joke if I did it.

[cernobila]

That's a reasonable question. Please bear in mind that the M9 is significantly more complex than the M2 and M3, with many more setup and configuration options. Some are "set and forget" - time and date, for instance - whilst others are often regularly accessed - white balance or ISO. There needs to be some means by which the photographer communicates with the camera and the camera in turn reports the status of everything from battery condition to the number of shots left on the SD card. Later generation, more sophisticated film cameras (a Nikon F100, for instance) relied upon small LCD screens, sometimes more than one, scattered around the camera body and options and configurations were set via "custom functions" - this required the user to carry the manual, or a small laminated card to remind themselves of what "3-0-1" meant

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Thanks for that Bill, I kinda knew this was the reason. My comment was slightly on the sarcastic side and I apologise for that.

 

Seriously though, I understand that there are those purists that would like to preserve the original, with only the bare changes needed to handle the functions of the digital system and no more........But I feel that Leica could also introduce a mass market model, pure Leica and not another Panasonic, something that would take the best, the most wanted/needed and leave the rest......successful sales of one could subsidize the continuation of the other.

[bill]

Thanks for that Bill, I kinda knew this was the reason. My comment was slightly on the sarcastic side and I apologise for that.

 

No need to apologise - I knew where you were going with your question

 

...I feel that Leica could also introduce a mass market model, pure Leica and not another Panasonic, something that would take the best, the most wanted/needed and leave the rest......successful sales of one could subsidize the continuation of the other.

 

I don't think that anyone is arguing with that at all - I for one have said for some time that there is no reason why* Leica should not provide another platform for M (and R) glass that has all the bells and whistles to satisfy the extremists (at least for another 5 minutes ).

 

What I and others are trying to get across without being shouted down is the advisability of Leica not throwing the baby out with the bathwater and shifting to just producing a lowest-common-denominator, dumbed-down feature-bloated jack of all trades, master of none digicam for the cash-rich taste poor attention-challenged mass market and calling it an M10.

 

*apart from strategic direction, development cost, lack of market demand, inability to hit a reasonable price-point, etc, etc...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

Thanks for that, this is what I presumed but needed confirmed.

 

So, why have a LCD screen at all, they are obsolete, you really don't need them, why not wait till you get home and plug your camera into the computer (darkroom) and surprise yourself......just like in the old days.

 

Sorry, that was a bit cheeky, no offence meant, but might as well go to the extreme.

 

The Kodak DCS 460 was the first digital camera I used. It had a small LCD that allowed one to set some functions. It did not have an LCD for image review. I needed to use it tethered to be able to review the images easily. They added an LCD for image review on future models. In my opinion, being able to review the images quickly on a digital camera is one of its most compelling features over using film. Besides knowing if you "got the shot" it makes it much easier to fine tune lighting (I may use up to a dozen heads) and propping, than shooting a series of Polaroids. And I think few clients will work with a photographer if they can't review and approve the images on set.

 

Often the ability to review images has led me to refine a shot in various ways that I may not have done if I hadn't studied the images carefully before moving on.

 

If you don't ever take advantage of the ability to review your images then you have not fully embraced the benefits that come with digital photography. You may as well be shooting film and it is no wonder that other features of digital photography may not appeal to you.

 

I do find it odd that a few M users may accept the existence of the LCD but have a hard time accepting that sometimes it would be useful to see a live image on it.

[AlanG]

So, you are suggesting that the M's OVF is obsolete and will only be complete with an addon EVF.

 

Note to forum - this is for Diogenis -

 

Yes DIOGENIS, THE OVF IN THE M9 IS OBSOLETE. ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? AN EVF IS MUCH BETTER FOR EVERY CONCEIVABLE SITUATION AND SURELY LEICA KNOWS THIS AND WILL BE REMOVING THE OVF FROM FUTURE M MODELS.

 

AND I THINK P&S CAMERAS PRODUCE MUCH BETTER PHOTOS THAN AN M9 CAN PRODUCE.

 

ARE THERE ANY OTHER STATEMENTS OF MINE THAT NEED CLEARING UP FOR YOU?

[pop]

I do find it odd that M users accept the existence of the LCD but have a hard time accepting that it would be useful to see a live image on it.

 

I own several cameras, both digital and analog. I admit that there are moments when live view can come in handy. Those moments make up rather less than 5% (five percent) of my shots. I solemnly swore that I would not ever buy a digital camera again which did not provide for a finder I can raise to my eyes.

 

I do admit that live view with an EVF can be useful, too. However, I have yet to see one which comes close to the "real" thing which - to me - is an optical view finder. For instance, I like the D2 in spite of its finder, not because of it.

 

Of my digital cameras, I used most cheerfully every one whole days at a stretch without so much as glancing at the display on the rear side.

 

I simply do not feel an urgent need for having live view in my M.

 

Anyway, the question is a bit academic as there appears to be a lack of sensors which can provide any kind of live view with an acceptable image quality and power consumption.

[AlanG]

Anyway, the question is a bit academic as there appears to be a lack of sensors which can provide any kind of live view with an acceptable image quality and power consumption.

 

Of course it is academic. It will only be answered when Leica makes a live view M.

 

It might be a good exercise for each person to make his/her own private list of the advantages and disadvantages that may come from adding live view and a clip on EVF to an M. Then they could narrow down their focus and determine what their real concern is. Maybe some hate the technology and just miss using film Ms.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[diogenis]

Note to forum - this is for Diogenis -

 

Yes DIOGENIS, THE OVF IN THE M9 IS OBSOLETE. ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? AN EVF IS MUCH BETTER FOR EVERY CONCEIVABLE SITUATION AND SURELY LEICA KNOWS THIS AND WILL BE REMOVING THE OVF FROM FUTURE M MODELS.

 

AND I THINK P&S CAMERAS PRODUCE MUCH BETTER PHOTOS THAN AN M9 CAN PRODUCE.

 

ARE THERE ANY OTHER STATEMENTS OF MINE THAT NEED CLEARING UP FOR YOU?

 

Yes, I knew it already.