250swb Posted July 4, 2012 Share #21 Posted July 4, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The internet is swamped by people who need something, especially when it comes to needing a manufacturer to make a custom camera for them alone. But if Leica went with an EVF it wouldn't be because people need it, it would be because people expect it, a subtle difference. Gone would be the days of inaccuracy in the viewfinder when the overall message of Leica has been accuracy with the lenses, so it never made sense, it has always been a conundrum. An EVF would deal with that in one go by matching the superb lens to the superbly accurate viewfinder. But there would be a difficult point to negotiate with the die hards, and perhaps keeping the M9 going would be the answer. But there would also be a difficult point to negotiate with people who see the Fuji X-Pro with its EVF, and the price difference between Fuji and Leica, and possibly consider that Leica aren't worth it any more. Which is why if Leica have any sense they will take on Fuji at their own level in an EVIL camera and not get the M range embroiled in EVF's. Keep them apart and customer expectations will be answered. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Hi 250swb, Take a look here Serious Question About Why We Would Want An EVF On The M10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Paul J Posted July 4, 2012 Share #22 Posted July 4, 2012 I would certainly buy one to use longer lenses with. A 135mm Summicron would be wonderful. Although I would still prefer the existing optical finder where possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 4, 2012 Share #23 Posted July 4, 2012 Well, the option to use long R lenses would be a selling point for me. However I am hoping for Leica's EVIL (APS C? H?) camera next year and an integrated EVF solution is certain to be more functional. In that case I'll probably stick with my M9 and get the E1 or whatever it will be called. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 5, 2012 Share #24 Posted July 5, 2012 Thanks for the info, Jeff. I never knew that was an issue. Same basic issue as with digital Ms, except that the M has no menu feature to allow adjustments for front or back focus as do various modern DSLRs. Hence the need to send M cameras and lenses in for service if such adjustment is desired (unless one is mechanically inclined). FYI, here is an old review of the LensAlign product, which many use for cameras that have menu settings and live view to accommodate adjustments. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted July 5, 2012 Share #25 Posted July 5, 2012 I see why there are focus issues with the M9, that is because rangefinder focus is by proxy. But I've never had issues with a reflex. Maybe the new ones with 20-36mp are more critical? Pretty sure I won't ever own one. The 12 mp 5d1 is more than enough for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 5, 2012 Share #26 Posted July 5, 2012 I've been going through a bad patch - focussing poorly, pretty average composition, and lots of indifferent exposure. I suspect it's just an issue of not having put enough time into taking pictures recently. I still have a lot to learn with what I have. I have been trying to simplify matters by using the loaner M9 with just the Summilux 35 ASPH (FLE). It seems to be an easy lens with which to get good results, and hopefully it will get me back on track. I very seriously doubt I will be even remotely interested in the M10, whatever it is. The M9P does everything I need, and the issues people complain about don't bother me. I have an EVF on my NEX-5n, and it is supposed to be one of the better ones about (same as the NEX-7), and to be honest, the optical viewfinder on the M camera is better. In bright sunlight, the EVF is difficult, and it's just not the same as looking directly at the image through an optical viewer. It's fine for video etc, but otherwise it's not that great. Sure, an EVF on the M10 would solve issues of focus shift (pretty confident this isn't an issue with any of my lenses), and it would be good for telephotos and macro. But it would spoil the simplicity of the M camera for me. I'll be sticking with the M9P (and Monochrom, if I get it), and the odd outing with the M3. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 5, 2012 Share #27 Posted July 5, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) If you want a high level of precision and great versatility, live view is unmatched. Last week I was shooting interiors with a 5DIII tethered to the computer. At one point I wanted to arrange props in the foreground (silverware, plates, glasses, etc.) and I turned the computer so that I could see a live image on the 17" screen as I moved the props around. You can view the image wide open or stopped down for DOF preview. There also is an extremely accurate electronic level that can be displayed on the laptop or LCD. A spirit level that slips into the hotshoe seems pretty outdated. This level of viewing and precision was never previously available to me with any camera system. There once was a video camera that could be pointed at the ground glass of a view camera to give a tv image that could help one arrange props. But this was pretty crude in comparison. This is not the kind of thing that many need very often, but it is a great feature when you need it. If Leica adds live view a lot of lenses from other companies will be adaptable to it. There is one company that has figured out how to make adapters that can control electronic diaphragms of Canon lenses for use on the Nex. So almost any adaptation may be theoretically possible. Leica may not see that as much of an advantage since it could cut into lens sales. But in the case of the S2, where Leica does not offer many lenses, they make adapters themselves. It seems to me that this will surely make the Leica appeal to more users and will also allow the company to add lots of lenses and accessories. So I can't see how the company cannot follow through with tapping that potential market. Of course it has to be careful to integrate new features in a way that won't turn off too many traditionalists. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 5, 2012 Share #28 Posted July 5, 2012 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. mjh, you hinted/said in another thread that the M10 would be announced at Photokina. I think we can take it as read that it will have an optional EVF/live view. You're no doubt testing one right now, how is it going? Oh of course, I forgot, NDA! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 5, 2012 Share #29 Posted July 5, 2012 I see why there are focus issues with the M9, that is because rangefinder focus is by proxy. But I've never had issues with a reflex. Read the link from LuLa that I provided; the issue isn't necessarily camera specific, and can often result from additive effects of camera/lens combinations, even when each are otherwise within tolerance. Add to that the differences between film, which has thickness to accommodate these differences, versus digital, which requires closer tolerances. Whether you see, or whether you care about, any issues in print is of course another matter. The technical reasons, however, for minor front or back focus issues are fairly clear. It's almost certain that if you've owned a variety of digital cameras and lenses, some are less than perfectly aligned....technically. Some if not most of the world's greatest photos aren't technically perfect, so I'm definitely not saying that adjustment is necessary, only that there are technical issues based on known factors. Some people sweat the small stuff; some do not. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted July 5, 2012 Share #30 Posted July 5, 2012 Whether you see, or whether you care about, any issues in print is of course another matter. Some people sweat the small stuff; some do not. Jeff You know, crap like that is what ruins forums. People who can't discuss a point without slipping in veiled derogatory insinuations. People whose attitude implies that they are more discerning than the people they are speaking (down) to. I'm not personally insulted, because I'm secure in knowing the height of my standards, but this forum is atypical in being free from this sort of thing and it's just a shame when it happens. BTW I accept responsibility for responding to the post about using live-view to make focus adjustments to DSLRs in the first place. I should have realized it was off-topic and left it alone. Mea culpa. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted July 5, 2012 Share #31 Posted July 5, 2012 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). Hasselblad, Phase One - and many of their clients - would kill for a medium format CMOS sensor that delivered user friendly live view. CCD technology rules where larger sensor sizes are concerned simply because there's no alternative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 5, 2012 Share #32 Posted July 5, 2012 You know, crap like that is what ruins forums. People who can't discuss a point without slipping in veiled derogatory insinuations. People whose attitude implies that they are more discerning than the people they are speaking (down) to. I'm not personally insulted, because I'm secure in knowing the height of my standards, but this forum is atypical in being free from this sort of thing and it's just a shame when it happens. BTW I accept responsibility for responding to the post about using live-view to make focus adjustments to DSLRs in the first place. I should have realized it was off-topic and left it alone. Mea culpa. Oh my. That's really and truly not at all how I intended this. I apologize because you took it that way. Ironically, I'm in the camp that cares less about technical perfection than whether I have a good pic and a good print. I was merely pointing out that there are other people out there who are into all this technical crap, and that it has factual underpinnings, not necessarily practical or aesthetic need. And I just happen to have a friend who is among the crazies. I don't even currently own a DSLR, content to use the M. Web discussions do indeed lack personal inflection and attitude. If we had this conversation personally, I'm certain it would have been seamless and carefree. Jeff PS Grammatically I could have helped matters by saying "whether ONE sees..." rather than "whether YOU see..."....it was meant generally, not directed at you at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted July 5, 2012 Share #33 Posted July 5, 2012 I apologize for jumping down your throat Jeff. Thing is, I'm fairly sure most of us have seen the "if you don't see it my way then your standards are lower than mine" insinuation phrased with just enough creative subtlety that the poster can't quite be pinned to the wall for flaming...to the point where it seems the line between a dig and a truly innocent remark has lost its sharpness. I used to do a lot of upgrading of medium-format SLR focusing screens for professionals, like putting Beattie screens into Pentax 67s, modern Hassy screens into the original 500c (which required carefully cutting and removing the metal frame from the screen without damaging it) etc. Those cameras were not designed to interchange screens, and the upgrades were of a different thickness than the originals, so each one had to be very carefully adjusted at all four corners or else the focus would be off in some asymmetrical way. I've also re-mirrored and re-calibrated Speed Graphic rangefinders, and Horseman 9xx and VH-R series which in addition have an adjustable infinity stop for each lens. Each lens left the factory with a separate custom-mated rangefinder cam that locks into the focusing bed, so people who bought the lenses and cams separately on the used market, the cams often needed to be re-ground (if I was lucky) or entirely re-made by hand from scratch (if I wasn't lucky). I've also adjusted my share of Leica M rangefinders, including my very own M9 which needed the gain tweaked as well as the "allen key" (infinity) adjustment; and I hand-milled the lens head of my 135 T-E to perfect focus after a Leica repairperson sent it back to me saying it couldn't be done. All this to say I'm kind of familiar with the ins and outs of various focusing modalities, and the demands of those "crazies" you mentioned If live-view offers a quicker way to adjust the rangefinder and lens calibration than shooting images and viewing them at 100% on the computer, then I'm hoping the M10 has live view! But this thread was really about an EVF. The problem with those is technology has not yet advanced to the point of "is it live or is it Memorex?" IMHO the best of them still lack the resolution and refresh-rate necessary to replicate the experience of looking through an SLR and certainly not a Leica M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 5, 2012 Share #34 Posted July 5, 2012 That's ok...I've been among the crazies enough in the past as well. Not enough for me to just replace screens in my cameras, but special equipment to make sure my enlarger and neg carrier were perfectly aligned with the baseboard and so forth. Digital has made things both harder (tolerances) and easier (PP editing, live view, etc.) Pick your poison. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberline12k Posted July 5, 2012 Share #35 Posted July 5, 2012 I hope to assemble a rangefinder kit with 3 lenses by year end. The first lens, a 21/3.4, should arrive next week and will require either an external viewfinder or EVF. The other two lenses, 35mm and 50mm, appear to be in the sweet spot for an optical rangefinder viewfinder. I will likely order an M10 if introduced in September, otherwise I will look for a used M9. Since I have zero experience with rangefinders, why would I not want an EVF or live view for the 21mm? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted July 5, 2012 Share #36 Posted July 5, 2012 I've been using a NEX-7 for a couple of months now and I have definitely formed some opinions about EVF's. First, it is not anything like a rangefinder and it's not as good either. Second, it's still damn good, and for me, beats focusing by LCD all to pieces. For focusing longer length lenses (especially Leica M) it's terrific mostly because of the focus zoom feature. As to whether the M10 will or should have one, frankly I could care less. I think Leica may thrust the M into the 21st Century somehow (implementation seems to be the big question mark), but I'm pretty happy with what I have now. However, I'll hedge my bets and borrow the old Jamie Bond quote "never say never". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted July 5, 2012 Share #37 Posted July 5, 2012 why would I not want an EVF or live view for the 21mm? 1. Lag time. EVFs have a lag time - what you are seeing is running a fraction of a second behind reality. In my review of the Digilux 2 - The Leica Digilux 2 - a review - photo.net - I noted how much the subject had moved beyond the "firing point" when I used the EVF versus looking at the subject directly. EVF had a lag of about 1/12th of a second (80 ms). In a shuttered camera (e.g. SLRs and Leica Ms), the lag is longer - the shutter, open for live-view, must close and then open again for the actual exposure. It isn't a huge deal (it's how Hasselblads have worked for 60 years) but it is not neglible. 2. Focusing ability - rangefinder cameras excel at focusing wide lenses with lots of DoF, since you are not trying to focus past the DoF, but simply aligning two images in the rangefinder. With an RF and a 21, you just snap two sharp images together. With an EVF, you are fiddling the lens back and forth to find the sharpest image. Note that Leica lenses, unlike SLR lenses, are always stopped down. So focusing a 21 f/3.4 @ f/8, you are focusing @ f/8. 2a. In fact the Leica RF is much faster to focus with a 21 than an EVF - EVEN with the time lag of shifting my eye to the external viewfinder. I use a 21 Leica SLR lens on my Canon 5D for video - but only use the live view for framing. Focusing is done the "Hollywood" way - setting distance on the focus scale on the lens. 0.5 seconds vs. 3-5 seconds to focus with the live-view. 2b. EVFs are generally tiny. To me, they always look like those pix in the E**y ads down below here - like looking through binoculars the wrong way round. Makes manual focusing even tougher. Live-view on the back is a bit better, especially with an add-on magnifier. But then you don't have a compact reportage Leica, you have a view camera. 3. Compromises to other characteristics. Previously I posted a link to the effects on image noise from having a sensor "on" all the time, as required by live view. See post 15 in this thread. Live view requires a CMOS sensor, and thus far I have be underwhelmed by the pattern noise (digital-looking screen texture) produced by every CMOS sensor image I have seen, sooner or later. Maybe the M10 will have a CMOS sensor that is a generational leap ahead of what I've seen so far - in practice, not just theory. Then again, maybe it won't. 4. Power drain - electronic viewing draws a lot of power. Using live-view, my Canon 5D runs through batteries about 3x as fast as using the traditional ground-glass/mirror eyepiece. With "old-fashioned" viewing, the 5D (and an M10) don't even have to be "on" to view and set up a shot. 5. Aesthetics - will you really happy using a TV image to view a picture, vs. simply looking at reality through a window? Although that may actually be an argument FOR video in the M10 - since I'd be able to use the traditional glass finders even for video (allowing for the cropping difference between 2:3 and 16:9) Now - there are no doubt also arguments FOR using an EVF with a 21. But I'm a photojournalist, so my cameras, first and foremost, have to be able to take pix like this: Focus on the handshake, timing on the handshake, right now! (Leica M6, external viewfinder, 21mm lens). A camera or a viewing system that can't handle that is fated for the dumpster, no matter what other benefits they offer. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/183065-serious-question-about-why-we-would-want-an-evf-on-the-m10/?do=findComment&comment=2056259'>More sharing options...
algrove Posted July 5, 2012 Share #38 Posted July 5, 2012 Andy- You have hit the nail on the head. Any one using the Nikon 800 says that live view eats up batteries like they have never ever experienced in 30 years of photography. A pro I know says that 3 batteries will some times not suffice for an entire long day. On to the next M sensor. Since most who use one, say the 36MP 800 is hard to focus and tripods are almost mandatory. Look at the Nikon web site where they even stress using a tripod for shooting with it. I sure hope Leica does not go too high in MP for the new M as hand held available light shots could become a thing of the past for this wide M shooter who often likes hand holding 35-50 if the 800 is any indication of things to come. Do we really need more than 18MP? If most think so, then it's just a horsepower race. 24x36 is a big print and works just fine with 18MP. Heck 30x40 is doable too with modern day printers/inks and papers. For the internet 6MP is plenty. I understand the M shots displayed in Berlin by J.A. Sorbol were huge B&W's done with an 18MP MM. OK, albeit, an 18 w/o bayer array, but still an 18MP camera with one hell of a lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 5, 2012 Share #39 Posted July 5, 2012 I want 36MP so I can use my medium format outfit less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share #40 Posted July 5, 2012 Andy - thank you for that. That was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.