Higher resolution EVF for M and X-Vario

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't lose track of the fact that this is just an EVF... on the best 35mm RF camera system ever made. Who cares about 30 extra fps in an EVF? Some of us won't even use it much.

 

But you must find the EVF a real assist when using that beautiful R 280.2.8 mountain goat lens. Forgot to ask you before do you use the Novoflex LEM-LER adapter for now?

[Advertisement]

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

[Rick]

But you must find the EVF a real assist when using that beautiful R 280.2.8 mountain goat lens. Forgot to ask you before do you use the Novoflex LEM-LER adapter for now?

 

Yes, I use the Novoflex for now. It is specially adapted for goats.

[dante]

I'm coming to see the M240 as a stop gap camera; a step forwards' date=' certainly, but still shackled with a chipset which is, what, 6 years old at least. [/quote']

 

What part of this chipset is 6 years old? If you have a new sensor, new DSP, new screen, bigger buffer, new video output, and new power supply, it's hard to think of what could be the same.

 

The feature set, on the other hand, is closer to that age.

 

Dante

[digitalfx]

What part of this chipset is 6 years old? If you have a new sensor, new DSP, new screen, bigger buffer, new video output, and new power supply, it's hard to think of what could be the same.

 

The feature set, on the other hand, is closer to that age.

 

Dante

 

he is referring to the Maestro Processor

[dante]

 

he is referring to the Maestro Processor

 

Still light years ahead of the M8/M9...

[rramesh]

The M can only churn out a certain bit rate and if you have a higher resolution display, you will lose out on frame rate if that is the limiting factor.

 

I'm coming to see the M240 as a stop gap camera; a step forwards, certainly, but still shackled with a chipset which is, what, 6 years old at least. I think in fairly short order we will see a follow on camera which addresses the processing bottlenecks, maybe Photokina next year, barely a year away. If I didn't already have my camera, I think I might just be making friends with my M8s and M9s (we never fell out actually and my M9 has just come back from realignment - sensor and rangefinder - working very well) and hang on to my money for now.

 

Leica needs to refresh products in shorter intervals and yes, I believe the M240 was a stop-gap experiment.

 

The M240 serves two purposes. First to introduce the CMOS sensor and second, live view to gauge user feedback. It has been very positive with some caveats. The next M will be a significant jump (think M8-M9). It will be significant as it will address all current perceived weaknesses - new Maestro, EVF, electronics and support of zoom lenses. With bigger and better manufacturing facilities, delivery lead times will also fall.

 

The X Vario was another experiment in the right direction and I see a further experiment with the impending C 112.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Even if stop-gap, actual delivery of something new is probably a couple of years off.

 

Consider, too, that there was an M8.2 before there was an M9. [And I still prefer several aspects of the former compared to the latter, including top display, sapphire screen and 2m frame lines....without cracked sensors, red edge, card problems, etc.]

 

I'll happily get in a at least a couple years of shooting with the new M in the meantime, and perhaps even after. The improvements to the RF focusing, shutter release feel and sound, bigger battery, weather sealing, use of LV and EVF, etc. are worth the change for now IMO.

 

Besides, improvements to the PP and printing end of the chain often result in greater benefits for me than any camera/lens improvements. For a lot less money, too.

 

Jeff

[Rick]

Leica needs to refresh products in shorter intervals and yes, I believe the M240 was a stop-gap experiment.

 

The M240 serves two purposes. First to introduce the CMOS sensor and second, live view to gauge user feedback. It has been very positive with some caveats. The next M will be a significant jump (think M8-M9). It will be significant as it will address all current perceived weaknesses - new Maestro, EVF, electronics and support of zoom lenses.

 

But, this is true for all products through all of time: Manufacturer introduces a product. Technology marches on. Insecure customers perceive weakness. Manufacturer introduces new product.

[01af]

... and yes, I believe the M (Typ 240) was a stop-gap experiment.

 

The M240 serves two purposes. First to introduce the CMOS sensor and second, live view to gauge user feedback. [...] The next M will be a significant jump (think M8 - M9). It will be significant ...

I feel you got your logic seriously twisted. I think the M (Typ 240) is the significant jump, and the next M will be an evolutionary advancement.

 

The improvements I'd expect for the next M include (but are not limited to)

 

• more megapixels (as always)
  
• faster frame rate and data processing
  
• electronic viewfinder integrated into rangefinder; no accessory EVF required
  
• all kinds of improvements for video (4K, more video modes, etc) which I couldn't care less about
  

Another feature I'd greatly appreciate is body-integrated image stabilisation. However this would require an increased body depth. Maybe it's possible to make the body appear slimmer by making a little projection for the lens mount—but then, this would seriously change the appearance of the M body. So I'd like to see this feature but I don't really expect it to arrive anytime soon ...

[RobertJRB]

I think the M240 is the best RF out there. It may be a "stopgap" but it is capable of making very very good images. Would I like to see a VF4 viewfinder? Absolutely. But the VF2 is better than not having an EVF. Far better for framing; capable of using R lenses, better for closeups. I think the M240 is a great advance from the M9. The next Leica M is likely to be far more incremental -- maybe better EVF included in that. If you are a Leica user you must have patience.

 

Not to be picky, but all the improvements you name, better closeup, r lenses, tight framing, don't make the M a better rangefinder camera compared to the m8 or M9. It may be a better camera with much more capabilities indeed, but not a better rangefinder camera.

Using the M9 with the rangefinder with a 50mm lens or 28mm lens there is not much to justify an upgrate to the M.

[jaapv]

What does make it a better rangefinder camera are the significant improvements made to the rangefinder. More accurate, easier to use and more impact-resistant.

[jonoslack]

Not to be picky, but all the improvements you name, better closeup, r lenses, tight framing, don't make the M a better rangefinder camera compared to the m8 or M9. It may be a better camera with much more capabilities indeed, but not a better rangefinder camera.

Using the M9 with the rangefinder with a 50mm lens or 28mm lens there is not much to justify an upgrate to the M.

Actually, whilst I agree with your first paragraph, I completely disagree with the second. The justification of the upgrade to the M includes:

much quieter and better shutter

refined and improved rangefinder

better high ISO

better battery life

generally faster

I actually think the M is just about the perfect rangefinder . . . only thing I'd really like is to see it being slimmer. (but I doubt it'll happen).

. . . . which is why I don't see it as a stopgap, but as O1af said, as the big step forward.

 

. . . as for the higher resolution EVF, I'm sure that if Leica decide to sell the VF4 they will make the firmware changes, but they certainly won't do it so that Olympus can sell more finders!

[marknorton]

Jono, don't you think there's an opportunity to use a more modern variant of the Maestro chip set which could feature improved performance, lower power consumption, higher video frame rate and/or resolution required for a better viewfinder. Isn't the current chip set 6 years old?

 

As for Olympus selling more finders, the simple solution is for Leica to moderate their mark-up on a bought-in product or do a better deal with the OEM supplier...

 

I actually prefer the look of the Olympus finder, more streamlined than the sit-up-and-beg Leica finder. Perhaps the lady who designed the Frankenfinder was given a second chance with the EVF and so proved you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

[luigi bertolotti]

I feel you got your logic seriously twisted. I think the M (Typ 240) is the significant jump, and the next M will be an evolutionary advancement.

 

The improvements I'd expect for the next M include (but are not limited to)

 

• more megapixels (as always)
  
• faster frame rate and data processing
  
• electronic viewfinder integrated into rangefinder; no accessory EVF required
  

...

 

Would be wonderful... but I fear this wouldn't be an easy improvement to make within the current body ... but having looked into the XPro1 "dual tech" VF , this would be definitely a tremendous plus for the next M.

[bocaburger]

What does make it a better rangefinder camera are the significant improvements made to the rangefinder. More accurate, easier to use and more impact-resistant.

 

The M240 has the same baselength and magnification therefore it can't be more accurate. It could be the 240 has more optical clarity to aid the eyesight, which would facilitate more accurate focusing. I only handled the 240 briefly and don't recall it being noticeably crisper than my M9 but YMMV. Impact resistance you could very well be right about. But I've never had a Leica rangefinder go askew from impact, but my impacts and yours might not be the same. To me the biggest rangefinder issue has been Leica's sloppy QC. My M9 was woefully off both at infinity and close range. But once I went through the tedious process of correcting the adjustment, it has not strayed, remains exquisitely accurate at least with my most demanding lenses (50/1.4, 90/2 and 135/4).

[01af]

The M (Typ 240) has the same baselength and magnification therefore it can't be more accurate.

This statement would be true if baselength and magnification were the only factors affecting accuracy.

[bocaburger]

Other factors including but not limited to calibration, finder clarity/contrast, and resistance to misalignment can contribute toward the rangefinder achieving its maximum potential accuracy, but that maximum potential accuracy is determined (and limited) by magnification and baselength.

[jaapv]

The M240 has the same baselength and magnification therefore it can't be more accurate. It could be the 240 has more optical clarity to aid the eyesight, which would facilitate more accurate focusing. I only handled the 240 briefly and don't recall it being noticeably crisper than my M9 but YMMV. Impact resistance you could very well be right about. But I've never had a Leica rangefinder go askew from impact, but my impacts and yours might not be the same. To me the biggest rangefinder issue has been Leica's sloppy QC. My M9 was woefully off both at infinity and close range. But once I went through the tedious process of correcting the adjustment, it has not strayed, remains exquisitely accurate at least with my most demanding lenses (50/1.4, 90/2 and 135/4).

Mechanical precision has no bearing on accuracy? I agree that baselength and magnification determine the maximally achievable accuracy, but the difference lies in how close the actual rangefinder can approach that ideal value.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bocaburger]

Do you find your M240 shots are in sharper focus than those with the Monochrom?

[Shade]

They will need a firmware upgrade for the M to be able to use the EVF4. The data cannot be sent/translated to the new viewfinder due to perhaps different alogarithm issues.