Higher resolution EVF for M and X-Vario

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think that a better EVF would be a welcome accessory for M... But just an ACCESSORY... If one finds that a very good EVF IS what he likes better to frame, no reason to have a M... "best of both worlds" is a nice dream 99% of times...

 

You are right. The M is a rangefinder camera, not a EVF camera, but...

 

... it is an expensive product and you cannot sell accessories with outdated specification and limited usability.

 

So I am sure Leica will change this. Even more, I believe Leica will release a firmware update that allows the use of the VF-4 on the M, with lower resolution or frame-rate than the device can deliver. It doesn't make sense (except for some limitation in the hardware, like power supply) not to be able of using one of such units with the same resolution and frame rate than the VF-2.

[CheshireCat]

If one finds that a very good EVF IS what he likes better to frame, no reason to have a M

 

My personal reason to own an M is I have invested in Leica lenses that don't work very well on the current generation of full frame cameras.

 

For me, Leica is only about lenses, and the rangefinder is medieval technology.

I believe that many rangefinder users would switch to EVF once they see with their own eyes what a high resolution EVF can do in conjunction with proper firmware and intelligent ergonomic design (i.e. all the opposite of what we have on the M).

 

This EVF vs Rangefinder debate smells exactly like film vs digital. We should know better, and understand that this aversion to innovation is counterproductive for Leica and us, their customers.

[jaapv]

You are right. The M is a rangefinder camera, not a EVF camera, but...

 

... it is an expensive product and you cannot sell accessories with outdated specification and limited usability.

 

So I am sure Leica will change this. Even more, I believe Leica will release a firmware update that allows the use of the VF-4 on the M, with lower resolution or frame-rate than the device can deliver. It doesn't make sense (except for some limitation in the hardware, like power supply) not to be able of using one of such units with the same resolution and frame rate than the VF-2.

 

I would not be surprised if you would have to wait for the next iteration of the M.

[StephenPatterson]

My personal reason to own an M is I have invested in Leica lenses that don't work very well on the current generation of full frame cameras.

 

For me, Leica is only about lenses, and the rangefinder is medieval technology.

I believe that many rangefinder users would switch to EVF once they see with their own eyes what a high resolution EVF can do in conjunction with proper firmware and intelligent ergonomic design (i.e. all the opposite of what we have on the M).

 

This EVF vs Rangefinder debate smells exactly like film vs digital. We should know better, and understand that this aversion to innovation is counterproductive for Leica and us, their customers.

 

For me the issue boils down to focus confirmation with Leica M lenses. Focus peaking is a slow and inaccurate substitute to the M's rangefinder, but if there was a way to quickly focus on a single point accurately and constitantly I would be a potential customer for such a Leica EVIL camera.

[CheshireCat]

For me the issue boils down to focus confirmation with Leica M lenses. Focus peaking is a slow and inaccurate substitute to the M's rangefinder

 

Focus peaking as implemented in the M is a joke. Moreover, even a good implementation of focus peaking cannot achieve perfect focus.

My favorite way of nailing focus is toggling a magnified view of the square around the (user-selectable) focus point in the lower left corner of the EVF. This way, I can see both the whole frame and the magnified focus point at the same time.

No rangefinder can achieve this precision, even when perfectly calibrated for the particular lens, distance and aperture used.

 

if there was a way to quickly focus on a single point accurately and constitantly I would be a potential customer for such a Leica EVIL camera.

 

Like I explained above, there is already a way.

I am sure 99% of Leica users will love it as soon as Leica marketing will come up with the next M in 3 years sporting high resolution EVF and "an innovative selectable focus point with PIP magnification that allows you to keep an eye on the whole frame and not lose the decisive moment"

 

At that time, the competition will probably have retina EVF with next gen phase-detection focus peaking... and Leica users will say it is useless

[jaapv]

It may be a joke to you, but there is a bit of a learning curve and then it is considerably more precise that the more "foolproof" implementations on other cameras, as noticed by various users on this forum. Take your pick. I personally prefer precision.

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Even if the VF-4 could be made to work with the M I don't think I would upgrade, considering I use the optical viewfinder 90% of the time. The VF-2 does everything I need it to do, for those times when an electronic viewfinder is preferential to the optical rangefinder (ultra wide lens composition, low light work). More dots or a faster frame rate would do nothing for IQ.

 

I agree with all of this, Stephen.

 

I did like the EVF on my A7R. It is really nice. But, the difference in the ease of focusing wasn't significantly better than the VF-2. The low light lag in the Sony EVF was a bit difficult to work with. I don't remember that with the M. Sony's design choice was for a nicer EVF at the expense of actual performance (in low light). I'm content for now with Leica's implementation of the poorer resolution EVF. Like you wrote, "More dots or a faster frame rate would do nothing for IQ."

 

Overall, the EVF concept, for me, is a clumsy and fiddley way to shoot the M anyway. A slightly higher resolution EVF would be welcome of course, but it wouldn't enhance the M very much, for me. The experience of using the EVF on both the M and A7R brought me back to the optical RF with a new appreciation and understanding of how I like to shoot.

[algrove]

I agree with all of this, Stephen.

 

I did like the EVF on my A7R. It is really nice. But, the difference in the ease of focusing wasn't significantly better than the VF-2. The low light lag in the Sony EVF was a bit difficult to work with. I don't remember that with the M. Sony's design choice was for a nicer EVF at the expense of actual performance (in low light). I'm content for now with Leica's implementation of the poorer resolution EVF. Like you wrote, "More dots or a faster frame rate would do nothing for IQ."

 

Overall, the EVF concept, for me, is a clumsy and fiddley way to shoot the M anyway. A slightly higher resolution EVF would be welcome of course, but it wouldn't enhance the M very much, for me. The experience of using the EVF on both the M and A7R brought me back to the optical RF with a new appreciation and understanding of how I like to shoot.

 

+1 Well said RickSeahawk.

[CheshireCat]

It may be a joke to you, but there is a bit of a learning curve and then it is considerably more precise that the more "foolproof" implementations on other cameras, as noticed by various users on this forum. Take your pick. I personally prefer precision.

 

Focus peaking is not for precision, it is just to get quickly near focus (often with good enough results).

 

Real precision instead requires features like this (skip to 1:20):

[jaapv]

On the M it is pretty precise - I get spot-on focus accuracy with a 280 mm lens wide open -- which is what I use it for.

It has to be, as it is an adjunct to the rangefinder on the M. I think Leica chose a pretty good compromise for the intended use.

The rest is up to the photographer learning to use it.

 

As for good enough -that is not a concept I aspire to.

[cirke]

I think that a better EVF would be a welcome accessory for M... But just an ACCESSORY.

for you, for me it will be the main reason to sell or not all my Leica M gear, but actually there is no other small FF system like the Leica M

 

I never use the RF on the M 240 , I see no reason do do it

[jaapv]

In that case I am puzzled why you own an M240 at all. There are plenty of excellent alternatives coming to the market nowadays with better EVF implementations. At a lower price too.

[cirke]

In that case I am puzzled why you own an M240 at all. There are plenty of excellent alternatives coming to the market nowadays with better EVF implementations. At a lower price too.

no there is no alternative at all actually,

no FF small system nowhere , only the Leica M

 

I bought the M9 for the lenses and only for the lenses , I dont like the camera, and if you consider what you get for that price it is a bad joke

 

the sony a7r is not a system , and who can trust Sony ? they always change all suddenly if the wind changes

 

I want a small system FF with AF , maybe Fuji some day ?

[chris_tribble]

I never use the RF on the M 240 , I see no reason do do it

 

Speed?

Accuracy?

Brightness?

 

I hardly ever use the EVF on the M for precisely these reasons.

 

Set the meter to Advanced and use the EVF all the time and the M feels unresponsive and clunky

Set metering to Classic and use the RF and it's the best digital M ever (and given the new accuracy of the RF on the M-240, maybe the BEST M ever.

 

It's a funny old world...

[jaapv]

no there is no alternative at all actually,

no FF small system nowhere , only the Leica M

 

I bought the M9 for the lenses and only for the lenses , I dont like the camera, and if you consider what you get for that price it is a bad joke

 

the sony a7r is not a system , and who can trust Sony ? they always change all suddenly if the wind changes

 

I want a small system FF with AF , maybe Fuji some day ?

 

If you get AF sometime in the future what happens to your non-AF lenses which were the reason you bought this camera in the first place?

The joke is that the main thing you get for the price is the rangefinder that you do not appreciate…

[cirke]

Speed?

Accuracy?

Brightness?

.

 

Speed ? I find it very slow with a 90 or 135 mm

Accuracy ? not at all , you will nearly never be sharp where you want with a Noctliux and RF AND 24 mp

Brightness? With EVF I can see all very well and at night

[jaapv]

Umm.. I must agree with Chris. For focal lengths from 28-90 a rangefinder as implemented in the M is far superior to any other system in accuracy, speed and brightness. The system is fast - the user may be slow. The system is accurate, all mistakes are mine. You cannot be serious in suggesting that a pumped-up EVF screen in low light is more than a crutch.

[cirke]

If you get AF sometime in the future what happens to your non-AF lenses which were the reason you bought this camera in the first place?

As I said before I'll sell all if there is a complete system like Fuji

 

The joke is that the main thing you get for the price is the rangefinder that you do not appreciate…

It is the main thing FOR YOU and some oldish users

[cirke]

Umm.. I must agree with Chris. For focal lengths from 28-90 a rangefinder as implemented in the M is far superior to any other system in accuracy, speed and brightness. You cannot be serious in suggesting that a pumped-up EVF screen in low light is more than a crutch.

not at all , an EVF is the best thing one can find

and the M have the worst viewer one can find, have you already put your eye into an Hasselblad ? bright, large , open

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I’ve used about any camera there is, but keep coming back to the M. You are of course right, each system fits its own group of users. However, I still cannot understand that you bought a whole system for the lenses, yet are yearning to ditch it, including those same lenses as soon as you find a camera body that suits you better. It sounds all rather contradictory.

Maybe it would be more correct to say that you bought the wrong system in the first place?