Higher resolution EVF for M and X-Vario

[cirke]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

However, I still cannot understand that you bought a whole system for the lenses

The main reason was size and weight not the lenses, I had before an Hasselblad H with PhaseOne and I prefer the files from medium format

 

Anyway I have other (professional) reasons why I bought a Leica , at the end it is a 0 cost for me , and I can sell it at any time for a good price

 

I'd like (and hope) to see a Leica FF with AF and no RangeFinder , because I love the quality

 

the only small detail that I hate is the RF

[jaapv]

 

I bought the M9 for the lenses and only for the lenses.

 

The main reason was size and weight not the lenses

Sorry, I must have misread….

[Advertisement]

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

[cirke]

Sorry, I must have misread….

not misread but partially read, I said before that the main reason was the quality of the 3D look in a small system , the body has nothing to do with it , each sensor is good enough now , I don't buy a body for the sensor , even a Canon is good enough

 

then the reason was the small + very good + lenses

[jaapv]

, each sensor is good enough now , I don’t buy a body for the sensor , even a Canon is good enough

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

[CheshireCat]

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 probably meant "any other manual system".

Even so:

- Accuracy ? Try using a Noctilux 50/1 stopped down at f/5.6 with the RF. Leica had to modify the 35 Lux because of RF deficiencies clearly revealed by digital sensors. And what about all the lenses and cameras that go back for calibration ? Pixel perfect accuracy in any condition is only possible with EVF (not Leica's one, though).

- Speed ? Accurate focusing is slow, especially in dim light (sometimes even impossible). People with less than perfect vision are slower.

- Brightness ? EVF is brighter. Even a decent SLR viewfinder with fast lenses is brighter.

 

The system is fast - the user may be slow.

 

Fair enough... then tricycles are faster than cars.

The tricycle is fast - the kid may be slow

[jaapv]

“If it doesn’t work for me it cannot work for anybody” You gotta love this forum

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

[/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.

QUOTE]

 

Please do not misunderstand this for a criticism of the M240, but I need some clarification here.

I agree that the calibration for 2m (if I remember right) of the M8.2 was more accurate for framing at infinity, but as far as impact-resistance and ease of use, I really have no idea what you are talking about. I have used my M9 extensively since it shipped in the first batch in the US, and I have NEVER had any problems with calibration or "ease of use" of my rangefinder. The rumor about an improved rangefinder is being thrown around here a lot, but what EXACTLY does LEICA claim to have changed in the M rangefinder mechanism other than the calibration for a further distance?

[jaapv]

Leica claims it has been reworked ( interview with Mr. Daniel) and there are multiple reports of improvement on this forum. Indeed the older RF is pretty good; the M RF is even better.

[BerndReini]

I did see Stefan Daniel's quote and I really wonder what they did. Maybe I am one of the lucky few, but I can honestly say that my rangefinder is and has been perfect to the point where human vision is the limiting factor. The only time focusing becomes problematic is when I have to compensate for reframing portraits with the 50mm 1.4. Due to the shallow depth of field and somewhat wide angle for close portraiture, the focal plane shifts quite noticeably when you tilt the camera down to reframe. I find it more relible to just shoot a little looser, keep the eye centered, and crop the top later.

[jaapv]

1.Flare has been reduced through elimination of the illumination window and different coatings

2. Precision has been enhanced by more narrow manufacturing tolerances.

3. Shock resistance has been improved by replacing the vertical fork-friction adjustment by an eccentric screw.

And maybe one or two other things we don’t know about.

Additionally the framelines have been chosen to be approx. 100% accurate at 2 m. Which means they are too wide at shorter distances.

Edited February 9, 2014 by jaapv

[colonel]

1.Flare has been reduced through elimination of the illumination window and different coatings

2. Precision has been enhanced by more narrow manufacturing tolerances.

3. Shock resistance has been improved by replacing the vertical fork-friction adjustment by an eccentric screw.

And maybe one or two other things we don’t know about.

Additionally the framelines have been chosen to be approx. 100% accurate at 2 m. Which means they are too wide at shorter distances.

 

Thanks

I do notice the flare resistance change.

Side question, is the RF window coated in any polarising or shading coating ? I am asking as one of the benefits of an EVF is being able to shoot into the sun without fear of damaging the eyes. I noticed that looking through the RF at the sun (obliquely so as not to damage the eye) does seem slightly muted.

 

 

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Edited February 11, 2014 by colonel