Serious Question About Why We Would Want An EVF On The M10

[johnbuckley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For someone who shoots exclusively with an M -- okay, occasionally I pull out an X1 -- can someone explain what the advantage to us would be if the M10 has an EVF and live view? It's not meant to be a trick question, and I know there are strong feelings about this. But having never used an EVF, but genuinely loving the rangefinder focusing which I've mastered through practice, I am sincerely wanting to know: should I be rooting for an EVF in the M10?

[Advertisement]

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

[mjh]

This has been covered here before, many times I think … Anyway, the advantages of a live view option should be obvious – it would extend the range of the M to support macro work and long telephoto lenses. It would be like a digital Visoflex. Now if you had live view and were into rangefinder photography then you probably wouldn’t feel comfortable if you had to hold the camera at arms’ length to watch the display; you would prefer an (electronic) viewfinder. So an optional EVF would make a great accessory for a digital M supporting live view.

[thighslapper]

No, don't bother rooting........ I do not think it will be 'in the M10'

 

I bet it will be a Visoflex add-on like the one for the X2 and the basic rangefinder will remain unchanged.

 

That will give you both ..... if you wish.

 

As I have said before, Leica appear to apportion names in a very logical way with reference to the past and it strikes me as illogical to call the X2 EVF a 'Visoflex' unless it was intended to be used in a fashion on the M line of cameras......

[Jager]

As a motorcyclist I use Live View (on my Nikons) when I want to grab a quick shot without removing my helmet. With the current M cameras (which, frankly, are what I almost always have with me), that's not possible. I'm forced into a much more invasive 'stop, get off the bike, remove sunglasses, remove helmet, pull camera from tank bag (BMW) or rear seat bag (Harley), take picture.' Because of the greater effort involved, I end up often simply not stopping.

 

Live View is also great for camera angles which otherwise require contortionist efforts (think camera on the ground).

 

For those reasons I'd love to have Live View on the M10. But only if it were a non-intrusive option that does not in any way diminish the excellent optical viewfinder that Leica M's are famous for.

[johnbuckley]

Thank you both. This has been touched upon often, but not actually explained. So is the consensus, when people on the Forum write, "the M10 will/will not have an EVF with live view," that we are talking about an external viewfinder, as opposed to an electronic viewfinder built into the camera? Again, I've been following this closely but have not understood the argument, nor the advantages and disadvantages of an EVF, save for my automatic conservatism of not wanting to change the viewfinder system I love in my M9. If this is a capability added to the M10 that one can chose to have or not have, based on whether you buy an external accessory, I'll breathe easier. Pardon my ignorance, but I'm just a simple M photographer who has not used these new-fangled fancy systems.

[luigi bertolotti]

No much more to add : an accessory that, if well done, will open new fields for Leica M usage, and new levels of usability : but, hopingfully, not throwing away the classic M style of taking photos : I have number of external VFs... a pair of Visoflexes with proper lenses... but 80-90% of my M usage is made with camera+VF/RF coupled lens...

[johnbuckley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a motorcyclist I use Live View (on my Nikons) when I want to grab a quick shot without removing my helmet. With the current M cameras (which, frankly, are what I almost always have with me), that's not possible. I'm forced into a much more invasive 'stop, get off the bike, remove sunglasses, remove helmet, pull camera from tank bag (BMW) or rear seat bag (Harley), take picture.' Because of the greater effort involved, I end up often simply not stopping.

 

Live View is also great for camera angles which otherwise require contortionist efforts (think camera on the ground).

 

For those reasons I'd love to have Live View on the M10. But only if it were a non-intrusive option that does not in any way diminish the excellent optical viewfinder that Leica M's are famous for.

 

Jeff - thanks for this. You posted just as I did. This is what I am getting at, and I appreciate the reply.

[sdai]

So an optional EVF would make a great accessory for a digital M supporting live view.

 

Ha, I love this ... the keyword here is "optional".

[Jeff S]

I have used M cameras for decades, but Canikons offer a few features that on occasion are desirable for me, but aren't available on the M. These are weather sealing, convenient use of moderate tele lenses and live view for critical focus when using a tripod.

 

Personally though, if I prioritized these features for my use, weather sealing wins by far. It rains and snows a lot more often than I use teles or tripods.

 

The caveat for me, however, is that the resultant IQ using newly required CMOS or other new technology needs to be at least at current M levels before I'd consider selling either of my M8.2s; otherwise, the new M might become a lighter complementary camera in lieu of a DSLR.

 

Jeff

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

The caveat for me, however, is that the resultant IQ using newly required CMOS or other new technology needs to be at least at current M levels before I'd consider selling either of my M8.2s; otherwise, the new M might become a lighter complementary camera in lieu of a DSLR.

 

Jeff

 

And for me it has to match or beat the M9. We'll see

[oronet commander]

Ha, I love this ... the keyword here is "optional".

 

The main problem is that the switch to CMOS sensors would not be optional. If that means losing that natural look of M pictures I would be more than sorry

[SJP]

Another option is to keep your M8 or M9 if you (rightly so) want to keep CCD, maybe the new thing will not be an 'M only' but 'M and R' lens compatible. That would make sense.

 

Keep the M series as top of the line (excluding S2), then Leica with this thing can branch out with FF manual and AF M-mount (compatible) optics, accommodate the R lenses with an adapter.

 

Result (if they are smart) is:

- a cheaper CMOS body that has EVIL & live-view but no rangefinder,

- develop the M line separately as the top of the bill & shift more M-lenses due to more bodies in the market,

- make (DM)R owners happy (unless they prefer film, but still a useful backup),

- provide maximum flexibility allowing (M-manual lenses, M-AF lenses, R lenses, anything else non AF that comes to mind).

- Market the thing with a very high quality, and very high price, medium range zoom (28-90) that does justice to the Leica brand and let the sales begin.

 

Anyway, I will not loose sleep over this, Leica seems to know what they are doing in recent times.

[bocaburger]

It's always possible to come up with reasons why something is "needed". Leica users seem to have an additional talent for coming up with them after-the-fact (like, why lens-mounted IR filters are useful ). The main reason I can think of why Leica would want to include live-view and an optional EVF would be to make the camera appeal to a wider market. As we all acknowledge, accurate focusing and accurate framing (especially with longer lenses that have small finder frames) an M-Leica takes practice and the patience to persevere. And that's something a lot of people seem to not want to do. I can definitely see how if the M10 has live-view and and EVF, there will be a lot of people buying it who will never use the mechanical viewfinder/rangefinder.

 

I have never once used live-view on my Canons, not even on a tripod. It's an SLR, I'm already seeing "live" through the lens. I've been shooting Canon since the EOS-1, and have never needed a more accurate way to focus than the viewfinder screen provides. And if I ever wanted to use my 400mm or do macro on my M9, I have a Visoflex III. But everyone is different.

 

And unless there is some new double-secret technology Leica has that nobody else does, I have not yet seen anyone's EVF that I could say is anywhere close to being comparable to SLR or rangefinder viewing.

 

So if Leica has added those "features" to the M10, I will not be using them. Hopefully the EVF will be an optional accessory and therefore save myself $700-800 (just a guess) by not buying it. The thing I like most about Live-View is I can just forget it's even there.

[Jeff S]

I have never once used live-view on my Canons, not even on a tripod.

 

Even if one doesn't use a tripod or live view for shooting (and unless one is willing to send camera and lenses to a technician), live view is essential for digital Canons to micro adjust each lens for focus shift with a tool like LensAlign. Otherwise, using the VF could still potentially result in less than optimal focus with any given lens.

 

This is worth the trouble for many. A friend recently checked 7 of his lenses (including Zeiss) for his 5DIII, and 5 of them required moderate to significant adjustment. His results improved noticeably in moderately large print. YMMV.

 

Jeff

[adan]

A couple of illustrative points:

 

1. Hybrid viewing systems (or perhaps, since Fuji is using the term hybrid for the X-Pro/X100 viewfinders, I should say "dual" viewing systems) have been around quite a while. Note this 1950s Asahiflex (precursor to Pentax) with SLR waistlevel viewing and a viewfinder for eyelevel framing:

 

Asahiflex IIb Model I.jpg

 

Not to mention classic "press cameras" which offered RF/VF viewing - or ground-glass viewing on the back (and even the option of focal plane or leaf shutters - long before the Leica S2). Of course, there was a size issue:

 

http://sheldonbrown.com/org/cameras/images/speed-graphic4x5.jpg

 

2. I wonder how many forum members - especially those "hot" for live-view and an EVF (I use the word "hot" advisedly) really understand the costs involved to image quality.

 

Here's a little real-world engineering that shows how much noise goes up as a sensor gets warm with continuous use (sequential 5-minute exposures).

 

Of course, you can cool the sensor, as this guy did. If you're willing to add a heat-sink the size of a half-brick to the camera.

 

Canon 350D Peltier Mod

 

Thomas Edison said that genius is "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." Leica forum members sometimes seem to be really good at the 1% - but fall down when it comes to the 99%.

[oronet commander]

http://sheldonbrown.com/org/cameras/images/speed-graphic4x5.jpg

 

Jesus! I didn't know the much-missed and beloved Sheldon Brown (a great man and a legend for all bycicle-lovers) was into cameras as well!!

 

Sorry for the off-topic...

[thighslapper]

The main problem is that the switch to CMOS sensors would not be optional. If that means losing that natural look of M pictures I would be more than sorry

 

This is where I see the big risk is........

 

The Leica philosophy is 'Quality and Functionality'

 

Changing to CMOS to allow a selection of rather dubious bells and whistles is not a good idea unless you can preserve the M9 imagery that we all love......

 

I hope they are not chasing Canikofuji gimmickry and neglecting basic image quality....

[pico]

[...]Not to mention classic "press cameras" which offered RF/VF viewing - or ground-glass viewing on the back [...]

There was also the Kalart Focusspot which made it possible, in the right light at reasonable distances, for the rangefinder photographer to focus without looking through the RF. For example, he could frame through the optional viewfinder (or not and just assume the Focusspot indicator is in the middle of the frame) and use the Focusspot as focus confirmation. It was good for newspaper photogs.

 

I have a couple Focusspots that work on the Linhof Super Technika V (some of them) and Graflex RFs. Graflex even made a rangefinder with such a device built-into the RF. I tried the Focusspot using a laser as a light source and it did not work.

 

Thomas Edison said that genius is "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." Leica forum members sometimes seem to be really good at the 1% - but fall down when it comes to the 99%.

--

Pico - a one-percenter of a different kind

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[bocaburger]

Even if one doesn't use a tripod or live view for shooting (and unless one is willing to send camera and lenses to a technician), live view is essential for digital Canons to micro adjust each lens for focus shift with a tool like LensAlign. Otherwise, using the VF could still potentially result in less than optimal focus with any given lens.

 

This is worth the trouble for many. A friend recently checked 7 of his lenses (including Zeiss) for his 5DIII, and 5 of them required moderate to significant adjustment. His results improved noticeably in moderately large print. YMMV.

 

Jeff

 

Thanks for the info, Jeff. I never knew that was an issue. Actually I only have one Canon left with live-view, a Rebel T2i, which I only use with the 18-55 IS lens for things like party snaps. Those don't get printed big, and frankly I wouldn't care if they were not in micro-focus I never found any focus problems with my 5D1 no matter what lens or how big the print. I bought a used 5DII, which did have live view, but sent it back when I realized I was paying for features I had no use for. Instead I bought a second 5D1 (a real beater but it was dirt cheap and has had the mirror attachment fix). No problems with focus on that one either, at least not at 100%. I checked it out pretty carefully while I could still send it back. The 5DIII holds no interest for me whatsoever, not at that price. Less and less I can stand to drag those monstrous cameras and lenses around.

[mjh]

Changing to CMOS to allow a selection of rather dubious bells and whistles is not a good idea unless you can preserve the M9 imagery that we all love......

Unless you are suggesting Leica should continue with the M9 for the foreseeable future, they have to move forward. Virtually all the new developments in sensor technology have been in the CMOS area, so even if one doesn’t care about the advantages offered by CMOS, staying with CCD technology is getting increasingly difficult to justify (except for sensor sizes above 36 x 24 mm where CCD technology still rules).