M10: A Vital Part

[-ph-]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just out of curiosity, why are you using a rangefinder given your comments above?

 

While not being the poster above, his statements could have been mine. So if I might chime in, I got the M9 because it is the most compact full-frame camera and the only one which accepts M type lenses. That it has a rangefinder was not the reason, though for most of the usages it works quite well. Still does not stop me from being interested in all possible improvements to the camera.

 

Peter

[pop]

Just out of curiosity, why are you using a rangefinder given your comments above?

 

There are things for which rangefinder cameras are best or at least adequately suited. There are things for which rangefinder cameras are not suited very well or not at all. Given the prices and the quality of my Leica lenses, I would dearly love to use them even when the M camera is not a good choice. Given that I already own a few cameras, I would not mind buying yet another one if I could afford it. It would not hurt, of course, if the EVIL had the same user interface as the "proper" M.

[bocaburger]

So for the anti live view people.. if it's there just don't use it.

I'm not anti-live-view, as long as it's unobtrusive enough I can ignore that it's there, and as long as it isn't the preeminent feature-upgrade of the M10. I will be content to do as you say and not use it, just as on the M9 I do not use Snapshot Mode, Auto-ISO, exposure compensation w/AE, discreet and soft modes, auto bracketing, manual lens input, the self-timer, and probably a few others I forgot to mention. However, a lot of the arguments in favor of live view are a little weak IMHO.

 

 

Parallax

 

Rangefinder parallax correction works quite well, and experience makes up the difference.

 

Polarizing .. .for the love of god why would someone "NOT" want live view for that very reason.

 

The swing-out polarizer works just fine for me.

 

Focusing long lenses... Have you ever used manual focus on a live view camera? They have features to zoom in so you can get critical focus.. which is very hard with my 135 elmar.

 

Yes to the first question, and I did not like it. Manual focus on an SLR is much more to my liking. I have no problem focusing the 135mm on my M9. But if I did, I would take the head off, put it on a short helicoid, and mount it on a Visoflex.

 

Wide angle lenses... do you like to carry and spend money on an external finder?

I already spent the money, they take up very little room and weigh next to nothing. And they can be used in bright sunlight unlike an LCD, and are much cleaner to look through than an EVF.

[lct]

.. I have no problem focusing the 135mm on my M9. But if I did, I would take the head off, put it on a short helicoid, and mount it on a Visoflex...

Then you would do this with your M9 whilst we would use an EVF on our M10. Now the latter should fit your Visoflex as well so i don't see any problem actually.

[bpalme]

Just out of curiosity, why are you using a rangefinder given your comments above?

Well, I did not say I don't enjoy the M9. I think there is room for improvement just as there is with about any camera.

[bpalme]

I'm not anti-live-view, as long as it's unobtrusive enough I can ignore that it's there, and as long as it isn't the preeminent feature-upgrade of the M10. I will be content to do as you say and not use it, just as on the M9 I do not use Snapshot Mode, Auto-ISO, exposure compensation w/AE, discreet and soft modes, auto bracketing, manual lens input, the self-timer, and probably a few others I forgot to mention. However, a lot of the arguments in favor of live view are a little weak IMHO.

 

 

 

 

Rangefinder parallax correction works quite well, and experience makes up the difference.

 

 

 

The swing-out polarizer works just fine for me.

 

 

 

Yes to the first question, and I did not like it. Manual focus on an SLR is much more to my liking. I have no problem focusing the 135mm on my M9. But if I did, I would take the head off, put it on a short helicoid, and mount it on a Visoflex.

 

 

I already spent the money, they take up very little room and weigh next to nothing. And they can be used in bright sunlight unlike an LCD, and are much cleaner to look through than an EVF.

I see.. So you would rather carry a whole nuther camera system instead of using a long lens on the M9 with live view.

And the swing out polarizer cost $500. It's clunky, big and fragile. Why would you not want a simple $20 CPL and the ability to turn on the live view instead of using that big expensive chunk of metal?

[bocaburger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I see.. So you would rather carry a whole nuther camera system instead of using a long lens on the M9 with live view.

Evidently you don't see, because I never said that. What I said was that I never had a problem using a long lens on an M Leica without live view. Certainly not a 135 as you cited in your post.

 

And the swing out polarizer cost $500. It's clunky, big and fragile. Why would you not want a simple $20 CPL and the ability to turn on the live view instead of using that big expensive chunk of metal?

 

First of all my swing out pola cost me around $50 when I bought it sometime in the mid-70s. It is neither big nor clunky and fits all my travel lenses (e39) from the 35 to the 135. There is a "vented" carrier called a Filter View that takes a 77mm pola with 62mm male threads that can be stepped down to e60, e55, and smaller. Those have served me well for years since well before live view was invented.

 

I have no objection to there being live view on my next Leica as long as I never have to know it's there, and as long as the rangefinder remains as is. The rangefinder is the only reason I paid what I consider a ludicrous amount of money for a camera.

[bpalme]

I don't think anyone is saying get rid of the rangefinder and replace it with live view.

[marknorton]

What I regret is that Leica seem to think the viewfinder/rangefinder is beyond improvement. It is, after all, the key differentiator between the M and other cameras yet we have a device which has not been improved in years - decades probably - and requires critical alignment and an array of accessories to make it work. I'm no optics expert but there must, surely, be someone in Leica who thinks it could be improved and, no, I do not count the feeble LED frame illumination in the M9 Tit.

 

My often (ad nauseam, some would say) repeated wish list still stands - variable magnification, built in diopter, better eye comfort - to which I would also add the ability to adjust/fine tune in the field. I don't think for one minute we will see any of it.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Choose the tool that compliments the application and/or preference.

 

Hopefully the M10 will expand that choice.

[jaapv]

What I regret is that Leica seem to think the viewfinder/rangefinder is beyond improvement. It is, after all, the key differentiator between the M and other cameras yet we have a device which has not been improved in years - decades probably - and requires critical alignment and an array of accessories to make it work. I'm no optics expert but there must, surely, be someone in Leica who thinks it could be improved and, no, I do not count the feeble LED frame illumination in the M9 Tit.

 

My often (ad nauseam, some would say) repeated wish list still stands - variable magnification, built in diopter, better eye comfort - to which I would also add the ability to adjust/fine tune in the field. I don't think for one minute we will see any of it.

I don't think this fits the facts, Mark. Leica has made many changes over the years, not all for the better (remember the M6TTL flare?)

I doubt that many parts of an M9 viewfinder/rangefinder would fit an M3....It is a constant evolution. And yes, a variable diopter is the most obvious development wish.

[lct]

And a larger VF window to get 1:1 mag. a la R-D1 or larger if possible. I wonder how large should the window grow to fit 35mm framelines BTW.

[bocaburger]

I don't think anyone is saying get rid of the rangefinder and replace it with live view.

 

Not yet. But unlike in the olden days, Leica is not sequestering themselves in their ivory tower dictating their customers' needs. These days they are clearly paying attention to the trends and the buzz. If their research shows a substantial percentage of M10 owners--particularly younger ones, and new buyers--prefer live-view/EVF over the rangefinder, then I think there's a good chance the M11 will have a built-in EVF and no rangefinder. The rangefinder is costly for Leica to produce and assemble, compared to soldering-in outsourced electronics. It is also costly in terms of warranty service, as people send them back for rectifying maladjustments that got past QC. Then there is the continual whining from a certain segment of the market about "innacurate" frame lines. So it would not shock me if the M10 is the first and last hybrid.

[lct]

I would not hold my breath. Rangefinders will always have a superiority in that they don't depend on DoF to do their job accurately. With TTL cameras, including mirrorless, we have to focus at wide aperture to get the maximum sharpness otherwise DoF will ruin our results. This is more visible with wides than tele lenses of course but with manual lenses like M's, EVFs cannot offer the spontaneity and immediacy we are used to with rangefinders.

[bocaburger]

I would not hold my breath. Rangefinders will always have a superiority in that they don't depend on DoF to do their job accurately. With TTL cameras, including mirrorless, we have to focus at wide aperture to get the maximum sharpness otherwise DoF will ruin our results. This is more visible with wides than tele lenses of course but with manual lenses like M's, EVFs cannot offer the spontaneity and immediacy we are used to with rangefinders.

 

I agree, which is why I can't understand all the enthusiasm for the M10 to have live view and an EVF. I would have expected the eagerest response to be along the lines of "Yeah, whatever, maybe it'll come in handy once in a blue moon". I've really been surprised by the number of people who appear to await live-view/EVF in the M10 with messianic fervor.

[pico]

I've really been surprised by the number of people who appear to await live-view/EVF in the M10 with messianic fervor.

 

It would interesting to know the age of those enthusiasts. It may well be that those of us who grew up in the pre-digital age are happier with the optical rangefinder.

 

--

Pico - When I told my step-daughter that we had no personal computers when I was her age (in 1958), she asked, "Then how did you get on the Internet".

[lct]

...I would have expected the eagerest response to be along the lines of "Yeah, whatever, maybe it'll come in handy once in a blue moon". I've really been surprised by the number of people who appear to await live-view/EVF in the M10 with messianic fervor.

He he yes but it would be quite handy to be able to use, say, a Macro-Elmarit 60 and an Apo-Telyt 180 in a not-too-big package to complement our M kit wouldn't it.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

It would interesting to know the age of those enthusiasts. It may well be that those of us who grew up in the pre-digital age are happier with the optical rangefinder.

 

63 years young.

 

50+ years using manual film cameras, 3 years using digital cameras, 40+ years earning my living as an image maker and very much hoping the Leica M10 has live-view, high res screen, optional EVF and a rangefinder.

[bocaburger]

He he yes but it would be quite handy to be able to use, say, a Macro-Elmarit 60 and an Apo-Telyt 180 in a not-too-big package to complement our M kit wouldn't it.

 

I'm not so sure. No one has said the M10 body will have stabilization, so I must assume it won't. Lenses of that physical size are a tad unbalanced on an M body, which makes hand-holding more problematic. That's especially true if using the rear LCD. So to get the most out of those lenses on an M10, some sort of camera support would be in order, in fact, mandatory with the rear LCD except for the olympic athletes among us Unless the M10 has a different and beefier baseplate attachment, cantilevering those lenses off the body's tripod bushing for any length of time is asking for trouble.

 

I really suspect that the prospect of doing macro and telephotography with the M10 thanks to live-view, sounds much better in theory than it is likely to pan out in actual practice.

 

Anyhow, my days of traveling with heavy, bulky SLR lenses is long gone, in fact I won't even take the 90 Summicron on a trip. And at home I have a very capable full-frame DSLR for macro and long-lens work.

 

Frankly the only use I can see where live-view and EVF could really become a major advantage to the M10 is if Leica were to come out with a compact zoom of at least the optical quality of the later R zooms. And inasmuch as I can predict with 100% accuracy I would never pay what they would ask for such an optic, I can't get overly excited about it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[algrove]

My wishes? Simple.

 

Increase the buffer size to maybe double or more from what we have now, and like most of us at a recent Leica Akademie lamented: if the A setting shows speed at a certain f stop setting, why can't the manual mode show the same thing in the VF in case you mentally loose track of the f stop you are at? Even an approximation would be better than nothing.

 

I' m no expert, but can't the later wish be accomplished via firmware.?

 

I still would like to see an EVF Visoflex offered.