algrove Posted August 6, 2012 Share #81 Posted August 6, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) If they turn a Porsche 911 (which I use simply because it's an example of a car whose internal components have been refined a lot over the years, but also whose basic ethos and shape and features have remained constant since the mid-1960s) into a four door sedan with an engine in the front, it'll certainly appeal to some additional users....but it won't be a 911 anymore - at all - and while one market may have been gained, another will be completely lost. I chose the M for some specific reasons, ie..it wasn't the same as all the other cameras out there, and fully accept and enjoy the limitations that come with that, and work within those limitations...it's part of the pleasure. This was true with film cameras too....some people complain about the problems with rangefinders "because you can't see through the lens and don't know what's really happening". They're right. Then buy an SLR rather than wishing the next M was an SLR. I guess when Porsche went water cooled it's like what Leica will be forced to do too-go with the rest. As for my air cooled Porsches-I still own them and will NEVER buy a water cooled one. Same might go for my future Leica purchases-stick with the old tried and true RF's. I got a Ruf CTR (the only CTR owned by one individual- plus a 1968 911 I race and an RS) due its incredible performance which it still has with the new R/P I mated to its 6 speed tranny. 0-60 around 3 seconds-that's like a FF 36MP which is too much for most people. Well, what Leica can I hold on to for 25 years from new? Looks like its the lenses only, but I have a new M9P in the box to use in the event my current M9 craps out (or as some suggest it will not be supported by Leica in 25 years time). Agree why take the difficult RF route when you can have an 800e. It's like driving a short wheel base 1968 911 which takes more skill than the 1969's and after with a 5cm longer wheel base, not to mention the latest 911's with no trailing throttle oversteer. Sorry for all the 911 analogies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 Hi algrove, Take a look here M10 with Live View - I'm wrong to yawn about this ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted August 6, 2012 Share #82 Posted August 6, 2012 Live-view could help in solving back-focus issues: Imagine the next M provided the possiblity to calibrate the position of the sensor according to the position of the optical viewfinder by integrating live-view and some ultra precise stepping-motors able to reposition the sensor. You'd go through a testchart set-up at different distances and diaphragms and memorize a characteristic "compensation-curve" for all nasty high speed-primes suffering from back-focus/focus-shift issues. (And integrate "anti-shake" at the same time). Such an idea would make it obsolete sending lenses and bodies back and forth to Solms.Sheesh - to go through all that rigmarole instead of intuitively applying the compensation that experience taught you... The mental effort required to pull up focus slightly when shooting an older wide lens @ 2.8 is minimal. New lenses don't exhibit the phenomena to a significant extent anyway. And hold the camera properly still at the same time... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 6, 2012 Share #83 Posted August 6, 2012 Sheesh - to go through all that rigmarole instead of intuitively applying the compensation that experience taught you... The mental effort required to pull up focus slightly when shooting an older wide lens @ 2.8 is minimal. This might have made sense when it was the only way possible but is certainly not a reliable approach that I would expect to have to employ with a modern camera. It should be clear to even the strongest RF proponents that there are numerous circumstances where a good EVF will do a better job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 6, 2012 Share #84 Posted August 6, 2012 Yes, I agree, but if the more precise solution would be as elaborate as described in the post I responded to I prefer the oldfashioned way. Surely the answer to focus shift is in lens design, as Leica did with the Summilux 35. I don't think they produce any lens now that produces enough focus shift to impact on real-life photography. And yes, in some cases an EVF will be practical, but it has enough drawbacks not to be a cure-all. A useful add-on I would say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 6, 2012 Share #85 Posted August 6, 2012 Sorry for all the 911 analogies. Actually some of them are appropriate, even for non-Porschephiles. Porsche has sound-insolated the latest model in order that when the windows are up, one can converse on one's bluetooth at barely above a whisper. But once he hangs up, if he then wants to hear the exhaust growl, he needs only to flip the switch for the Sound Symposer which transmits the engine sound into the cabin. I find that analagous to EVF. "Live View" is really a marketing misnomer. There's nothing live about it. It is tantamount to watching a televised broadcast of the subject. Looking through the range-viewfinder, that is Live View. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 6, 2012 Share #86 Posted August 6, 2012 There's nothing live about it. It is tantamount to watching a televised broadcast of the subject. Looking through the range-viewfinder, that is Live View. It is a live view of what the sensor is seeing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 6, 2012 Share #87 Posted August 6, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is a live view of what the sensor is seeing. No, it's a digitized LCD presentation of what the sensor saw prior to the last refresh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted August 6, 2012 Share #88 Posted August 6, 2012 No need to redefine a well established term; we all know what live view is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 6, 2012 Share #89 Posted August 6, 2012 No need to redefine a well established term; we all know what live view is. No point in redefining it perhaps, as long as we a realize it is a misnomer, every bit as much as "Reality TV". It is clearly the marketing guys who are redefining down as up and selling it to us for a profit. The Old Man From The Days Of Calling A Spade A Spade Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted August 6, 2012 Share #90 Posted August 6, 2012 The term was coined when a DSLR could only display a (still) sensor image after the fact; live view was intended to provide a live video image. Everyone grasped the meaning of that term, probably because this use of ‘live’ has long been established in broadcasting terminology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted August 6, 2012 Share #91 Posted August 6, 2012 Looking through the range-viewfinder, that is Live View. And the great thing is that you will still be able to do that even if Leica integrates live view in a new model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 6, 2012 Share #92 Posted August 6, 2012 No, it's a digitized LCD presentation of what the sensor saw prior to the last refresh. Your eyes and brain refresh too. We have something called "persistence of vision" that allows us to be fooled into thinking that 24fps images are continuous motion. So by your definition, you don't have a live view through the optical viewfinder either. I feel you are being overly concerned about seeing this as any kind of problem considering a display may be refreshed in 1/60th of a second or less, persistence of vision, human reaction time, the fact that many shots are made of static scenes and an M9 would not be an ideal choice by many photographers for most kinds of action photography in the first place. As a matter of fact a live view digital image can be continuously buffered in some cameras (not high end models yet) in such a way that it can even record the image from slightly before when you press the shutter release if you like. That way it can compensate for the failure of our reaction time. Some of the newer mirrorless models use a first curtain "electronic" shutter to reduce lag time. So don't think the EVF will cause you to miss all of your decisive moments as you already need to compensate for your reflexes and the M9's lag time to get them. If done well the live view on an M10 with a first curtain electronic shutter could result in less lag time than an M9's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 7, 2012 Share #93 Posted August 7, 2012 Alan, with all due respect, I've used EVF. It looks nothing like natural eyesight. It looks exactly like what it is, an LCD monitor. It does not fool my brain into thinking I am looking at anything but an LCD monitor. Disguise any camera so I can't ID it, put it up to my eye and I will tell you the moment I look thru the eyepiece if it's an EVF. I believe so will everyone on this forum if they are being honest. The key issue is only whether an EVF is tolerable. For me it is not. It actually makes me queasy if I move the camera quickly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 7, 2012 Share #94 Posted August 7, 2012 The key issue is only whether an EVF is tolerable. For me it is not. It actually makes me queasy if I move the camera quickly. I wholeheartedly agree with you, bocaburger. My problem with EVF is exactly the eye strain caused by using it. IMO live view is best implemented on a larger external LCD screen while viewing from a comfortable distance - as a matter of fact, many hi-end EVFs such as the ones used by cine cameras and studio cameras are designed to work in such a fashion. Try staring at a computer screen (even the most decent models) for only 2 minutes and move your sight away ... do you feel the relief? :-) For the M10, I only wish Leica could have included a decent looking plastic cover to seal the accessory port which accommodates the optional EVF - and I probably will never remove it from the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 7, 2012 Share #95 Posted August 7, 2012 Alan, with all due respect, I've used EVF. It looks nothing like natural eyesight. It looks exactly like what it is, an LCD monitor. It does not fool my brain into thinking I am looking at anything but an LCD monitor. Disguise any camera so I can't ID it, put it up to my eye and I will tell you the moment I look thru the eyepiece if it's an EVF. I believe so will everyone on this forum if they are being honest. The key issue is only whether an EVF is tolerable. For me it is not. It actually makes me queasy if I move the camera quickly. Well previously you said the issue was the delay. Now you say something else. That is you and you are entitled to not like it. I never said it was the same as direct vision or that one couldn't tell the difference. For some things it has advantages and for others it does not. That is why we have choices as to when to use it. Consider that many film makers seem to work fine with it. Reuters has cameras set up to shoot sports at the Olympics that are being framed using articulated devices and zoom, via live view and remote control. An optical viewfinder and holding a camera up to one's face is just one method of shooting. When using any tripod mounted camera for a static subject, I rarely look through the viewfinder after framing and focusing as I may not want to risk bumping the camera. (With my view cameras you couldn't see through them while actually exposing images.) The camera is simply a means to an end. I think the role of a camera is to provide choices and solutions for the photographer. When you start limiting features you limit the choices. If the Leica has live view and or EVF technology in addition to the optical viewfinder, the camera will have more capability and precision. If you elect not to utilize those things, that is fine, but having something that can work "adequately" vs. not having the capability at all is not much of a choice. I don't know why you get queasy. Pilots can learn to fly helicopters at night with live view night vision devices. Countless millions of cameras have been sold that work via live view LCDs or EVFs. Some of these also have direct optical viewfinders or reflex viewfinders. Many people have figured out how to use live view with them. Just because you and some others don't like it, Leica should care and not add this feature? I don't see why anyone would buy a 50mm .95 lens and I think Leica should stop making them in order to redirect their limited resources more productively. ;-) It seems a lot less useful than an EVF and harder to use. But that's me. Learning how to use an EVF is no different than learning any other camera handling skill such as learning how to focus a rangefinder and quickly re-compose. About 5 years ago I bought a little Canon Elph p&s because it was one of the few cameras of its size that had an optical viewfinder. (BTW the optical viewfinder was much smaller and not nearly as good as the one in my older Canon Elph.) After a while I found myself using the LCD most of the time. But I still want an eye level finder (optical or EVF) yet there now are virtually no tiny p&s cameras that have them so my choice may be to go with a larger more sophisticated model. I guess the manufacturers are not targeting that type of camera to me either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 7, 2012 Share #96 Posted August 7, 2012 Live view is extremely useful ... again, the question is how it's implemented. The helicopter night vision goggles are equipped with large eye relief and exit pupil eyepieces, and more importantly, they provide balanced vision to both of the pilot's eyes. It would be funny to see someone adapting a Zacuto style EVF to the alleged M10 but anything would be possible nowadays ... perhaps I will try a 7" monitor with it for my macro shots in case the M10 comes with a HDMI port. :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted August 7, 2012 Share #97 Posted August 7, 2012 Hey, Apple is supposed to be releasing a 7" iPad soon. That could be an interesting coupling arrangement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 7, 2012 Share #98 Posted August 7, 2012 Live view is extremely useful ... again, the question is how it's implemented. The helicopter night vision goggles are equipped with large eye relief and exit pupil eyepieces, and more importantly, they provide balanced vision to both of the pilot's eyes. It would be funny to see someone adapting a Zacuto style EVF to the alleged M10 but anything would be possible nowadays ... perhaps I will try a 7" monitor with it for my macro shots in case the M10 comes with a HDMI port. :-) You can put a Zacuto Z finder or something similar over pretty much any LCD screen live view or not - even the M9 to just review images. If the M10 has live view, a magnifier over the LCD will certainly be useful to some and you wouldn't necessarily need a separate EVF... except it can be pretty awkward to hold a camera this way due to the extension from the magnifier. That is why people use the smaller EVFs on many cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 7, 2012 Share #99 Posted August 7, 2012 Well previously you said the issue was the delay. Now you say something else. No I'm not. It is the delay that makes me queasy if I move the camera. It's why I could never get into video with a camcorder. If the Leica has live view and or EVF technology in addition to the optical viewfinder, the camera will have more capability and precision. If you elect not to utilize those things, that is fine, but having something that can work "adequately" vs. not having the capability at all is not much of a choice. But there is a choice: it's called buying a different camera. Why would anyone want to pay Leica $10K, much of which cost ostensibly stems from that complicated optomechanical rangefinder, if they prefer Live View and EVF? Leica could surely make a rangefinder-less M10 derivative with just Live View that would cost much less. The MD was much less expensive than the M4. I don't know why you get queasy. Same reason I get seasick I guess. It is what it is. I don't really think I should have to take dramamine to use my $10K M10, anyway it makes me too drowsy to shoot well Learning how to use an EVF is no different than learning any other camera handling skill such as learning how to focus a rangefinder and quickly re-compose. Honestly, you talk as though we're all children who never picked up a camera before. Most of us here own or have owned a multitude of cameras in our lifetimes. I've used view cameras, TLRs, SLRs, even cameras with wire-frame finders. An EVF is a tiny little TV set, plain and simple. Learning to cope with an overly-bright, jittery image is something I'm willing to do with the $300 Panny LX5+EVF I take to parties to make snapshots of my wife arm-in-arm with her relatives at her direction. And it has stabilization to minimize the jitter, which the M10 evidently won't It is not something I will ever use for serious photography, and thus not willing to pay for it on a Leica. Unless the M10 has something really more substantive than Live View/EVF to offer above and beyond the M9, I will not buy one. And, I suspect I am not even in the minority on that point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 7, 2012 Share #100 Posted August 7, 2012 Honestly, you talk as though we're all children who never picked up a camera before. Most of us here own or have owned a multitude of cameras in our lifetimes. I've used view cameras, TLRs, SLRs, even cameras with wire-frame finders. An EVF is a tiny little TV set, plain and simple. Learning to cope with an overly-bright, jittery image is something I'm willing to do with the $300 Panny LX5+EVF I take to parties to make snapshots of my wife arm-in-arm with her relatives at her direction. And it has stabilization to minimize the jitter, which the M10 evidently won't It is not something I will ever use for serious photography, and thus not willing to pay for it on a Leica. Unless the M10 has something really more substantive than Live View/EVF to offer above and beyond the M9, I will not buy one. And, I suspect I am not even in the minority on that point. I got it long ago. You and some others don't like it and don't want this feature but that's the price for progress or you'd still be back with screw thread film cameras that don't have coupled rangefinders or slow shutter speeds. Maybe photographic technology would have stopped at Daguerreotypes. Some users have to accept features they don't need in cameras. Nobody is designing a specific "bocaburger" camera and you can keep using your current gear if it does all you need. I bet almost nobody has bought every current Leica lens and body either. BTW, the brightness on most EVFs can be turned down. How much more one will have to pay for it on a Leica has little to do with the cost of the technology and more to do with Leica's pricing. Ask them why they charge twice as much for the same (Epson?) EVF as Olympus uses. And premiums on batteries, chargers, neck straps, lens caps, etc. Why do some people feel they need a $3000+ 50mm f2 lens? So if you are saying you are cost sensitive and don't want to pay too much for your photo equipment, why are you using this brand? Consider that the Sony Nex 7 body with built in EVF and lens is around $1350 and the Sony 2.4MP clip on EVF for their other cameras is only about $300 and both of these have adjustable diopters. The price of a Leica magnifier that fits over the viewfinder is also around $300 (less than half the price of a Leica clip on w/a optical viewfinder) so what's the big deal with the cost of an EVF? As for the cost of a hypothetical M10 with CMOS, live view, clip on EVF, and updated electronics... if Leica charges a premium over the M9 for this it will be because they feel the additional features and performance will be worth it to the buyers who will need to justify the expense... not necessarily because it adds significantly to the cost of making the camera. I am sure they are aware that not all M9 users will feel the need to buy an M10. (Similarly, the improvements on the Canon 5D Mark III did not compel every Canon user to pay the premium for it.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.