An M10 that has a viewfinder with 3 magnification levels: wide, standard, telephoto?

[robofc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There could be wide, standard and telephoto settings. My Contax G2 had a magnifying viewfinder which worked very well.

 

Wide with 21 and 24 and 28mm markings

 

Standard with 35 and 50mm

 

Telephoto with 75, 90 and 135mm

[Advertisement]

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

[hoppyman]

This would require a different viewfinder design of course which would be a departure from the last 50+years of Leica viewfinder and rangefinder design. Not so simple nor inexpensive even if possible.

I have previously owned the Contax G2 as well and while it had a number of excellent features, its zooming viewfinder was very small and squinty in comparison. I very much prefer that of the Leica cameras.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I'd love that. My Xpan had something similar and it was great.

 

Gordon

[ModernMan]

Perhaps, by the time Leica could have this to market it would be possible to have high quality electronic viewfinder/rangefinder instead. That could provide magnification choice, and potentially do away with framing error and the focus issues that we see discussed here. Various implementation approaches and issues have been discussed here in the past, with the expected dogma, of course.

 

My point is that at this time it is hard to imagine Leica deciding that there is compelling return on investment for a new multi-magnification optical viewfinder in the next m-camera. Particularly so in view of the electronic alternatives that may be available in similar time frames to when one might reasonably guess they would have a new opto-mechanical system to market, and the benefits such electronic systems could potentially offer.

[adan]

Figure out how to change the magnification of both the main viewfinder AND the secondary rangefinder image identically and perfectly (so that they still match up - or else the focusing is screwed).

 

Within the space available.

 

....then let's talk.

[giordano]

Figure out how to change the magnification of both the main viewfinder AND the secondary rangefinder image identically and perfectly (so that they still match up - or else the focusing is screwed).

 

Within the space available.

 

....then let's talk.

 

Many of the Canon RF cameras had 3-stage magnification - but no framelines or parallax compensation. There was a little 2-element galilean telescope between the eyepiece and the beam-splitter, mounted so it could rotate 180 degrees on a vertical axis. At 0 degrees it magnified the image, at 180 degrees it reduced it, and at 90 degrees the elements of the telescope were clear of the optical path so it had no effect.

 

But there wasn't room for framelines, RF mask and parallax adjustment: the later bodies with framelines and parallax compensation didn't have 3-stage magnification.

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have previously owned the Contax G2 as well and while it had a number of excellent features, its zooming viewfinder was very small and squinty in comparison. I very much prefer that of the Leica cameras.

 

I had G1 and G2. One of the reasons I returned to Leica (I foolishly sold my first M6 to fund the G2) was the viewfinder which I did indeed find squinty.

 

I think it is worth remembering the virtues of the current viewfinder.

 

• No battery consumption
  
• Clear and easy to see
  
• No electronics between you and the subject - true WYSIWYG
  
• Ability to preselect focal lengths by swapping frames
  
• Ability to focus in low light and bright sun
  
• Ability to see "outside the frame"
  

A few of those are unique to the Ms these days but that last is something that, to the best of my knowledge, is the EVIL that men don't do...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jto555]

I think it is a great idea and would only be of benefit. However as Andy said the engineering for this would be quite difficult so I don’t think it will happen with an optical viewfinder.

 

The viewfinder for the NEX 7 is electronic and has focus peeking. But, and its a big but, you cannot see outside the frame which is one of the main benefits with a range finder. Also the client base for M cameras is a little conservative , and it would be a brave (foolish) move of a manufacture to alienate the client base.

 

 

John

[mmradman]

I think it is a great idea and would only be of benefit. However as Andy said the engineering for this would be quite difficult so I don’t think it will happen with an optical viewfinder.

 

The viewfinder for the NEX 7 is electronic and has focus peeking. But, and its a big but, you cannot see outside the frame which is one of the main benefits with a range finder. Also the client base for M cameras is a little conservative , and it would be a brave (foolish) move of a manufacture to alienate the client base.

 

 

John

 

If there is ever full frame EVIL camera by manufacturer X sporting own AF lenses, supporting M & R optics and costing fraction of a M9 (they usually do) than seeing outside the frame argument will become less so convincing.

 

If Leica happen to produce first such FF EVIL camera than no doubt it will be praised to the stars regardless of its within the frameline visibility limitation.

 

 

BTW on Luminous Landscapes there is latest instalment of NEX-7 test with Lux 24mm pitched against Sony/Zeiss 24mm f1.8, Lux really shines in corners. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_nex_7_rolling_review.shtml

[Sp12]

• No electronics between you and the subject - true WYSIWYG
  
• Ability to focus in low light and bright sun
  

 

Bill

 

Both of those are better with electronic in most cases. Current digital cameras have limited DR, so non-electronic viewfinders present an unrealistic preview of what the sensor will actually capture.

[pico]

This would require a different viewfinder design of course which would be a departure from the last 50+years of Leica viewfinder and rangefinder design. [...]

 

Which Cannon had implemented decades ago.

 

.

[lct]

Both of those are better with electronic in most cases. Current digital cameras have limited DR, so non-electronic viewfinders present an unrealistic preview of what the sensor will actually capture.

This is one of the basic differences of rangefinders vs TV sets and various EVILs. A rangefinder shows us the reality.

[Matus Kalisky]

This is one of the basic differences of rangefinders vs TV sets and various EVILs. A rangefinder shows us the reality.

 

While I am also the one that prefers optical viewfinders or rangefinders, we should keep in mind that neither film nor digital sensors are able to record the reality as we see it. But digital viewfinders when done well (not sure we are there yet) should give us view that should be very close to how the reality will be recorded.

[bill]

Both of those are better with electronic in most cases.

 

I fundamentally disagree. I would rather witness life than watch a TV screen.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[lct]

...we should keep in mind that neither film nor digital sensors are able to record the reality as we see it...

I just meant that optical viewfinders are the only ones to show us the reality vs screens of diverse origins. What film or sensors can record is another story.

[rosuna]

I think it is a great idea and would only be of benefit. However as Andy said the engineering for this would be quite difficult so I don’t think it will happen with an optical viewfinder.

 

The viewfinder for the NEX 7 is electronic and has focus peeking. But, and its a big but, you cannot see outside the frame which is one of the main benefits with a range finder. Also the client base for M cameras is a little conservative , and it would be a brave (foolish) move of a manufacture to alienate the client base.

 

 

John

 

The M system should offer two different lines of cameras, the classic camera and a more affordable an electronic camera. It may be a partial intersection between the two models (live view in both, for instance, etc.). Many people would buy one of each flavor...

[rosuna]

I fundamentally disagree. I would rather witness life than watch a TV screen.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

The modern EVFs have much higher resolution than a TV, and the trend is towards better image quality overall, including higher refreshing rates, etc. It is not the same.

[jaapv]

But you are still watching a screen - not reality.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[janki]

We all, until now, have looked at what we want to depict through some kind of optical viewfinder.

 

However, from the photography's childhood, the case has been, - that this three-dimensional “reality” we see in the viewfinder will be lifted over to a two-dimensional medium of any kind, immediately at the moment the shutter is released.

 

If these new EVF is as good as all the reviews I've read tells me, - it's all just about to move the two-dimensional consideration a step forward in the pictorial creative process.

We can like it or not, but it looks like the full digital camera is here to stay.

 

SONY appears to completely set the agenda.

They are like a volcano that could explode at any time and inundate us with loads of new fully digital FF cameras and lenses.

 

Perhaps it is time that Leica is a little more specific on what will be their contribution in a development that appears inevitable.

[lct]

Abandoning rangefinders would not be an evolution but a regression (RF & SLR user speaking).