Peter H Posted June 17, 2015 Share #1 Posted June 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere, but I'm interested to know how those of you who are getting familiar with your new Q are finding the viewfinder experience compared with the rangefinder on modern Ms. Obviously it's a good EVF, but is anyone finding it changing their perceptions about the primacy of the rangefinder? Is it good enough to replace rangefinders, or is the essential difference too great to overcome? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Hi Peter H, Take a look here The Viewfinder. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pop Posted June 17, 2015 Share #2 Posted June 17, 2015 I have "used" it for a few minutes in the shop only. As everyone seems to know by now it's a really crisp viewfinder with a very high resolution and it responds very quickly. With the focus peaking things jump into and out of focus something wonderful. The autofocus is a speed demon. However, as the focal length of the lens is for me on the short side, the resolution of the optomechanical rangefinder is still better. In order to control what the autofocus will focus on you have different methods at your disposal, both in the finder and on the screen, but they are not as unthinkingly efficient as the rangefinder where you simply point and look at the thing to be focused on and turn the distance ring. I often carry the Nex 5N with its electronic viewfinder when I don't want to carry the M, so I've no prejudice against EVFs, and I also use the EVF on the M from time to time, but even the much improved EVF of the Q will not cause me to "abandon" the M or, indeed the RF. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted June 17, 2015 Share #3 Posted June 17, 2015 I'd like to know about this too. Any EVF I've tried so far has made me feel nauseous and they're laggy. If I suggest that a DSLR is better I'm hounded down for it, NO, EVF's are the future! Then when I dare suggest that the Q could be the first interpretation of a future M I'm hounded down again NO! an EVF isn't a rangefinder, it will never replace the rangefinder!! 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsv Posted June 17, 2015 Share #4 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Have mine now for a day. I find the EVF very convincing. No noticeable lag, very bright and crisp and very responsive to changing light. Much improved over the Visoflex 020. It's the first EVF that I find convincing. Apart from the EVF, the focussing speed is extremely good and doesn't miss a beat. EVF colors are also much improved. And compared to the Fuji X-T1, the EVF is in a different class. Edited June 17, 2015 by larsv 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsv Posted June 17, 2015 Share #5 Posted June 17, 2015 The EVF is certainly different from a rangefinder, as you can't see outside the frame. The total package is very convincing though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 17, 2015 Share #6 Posted June 17, 2015 I'd like to know about this too. Any EVF I've tried so far has made me feel nauseous and they're laggy. If I suggest that a DSLR is better I'm hounded down for it, NO, EVF's are the future! Then when I dare suggest that the Q could be the first interpretation of a future M I'm hounded down again NO! an EVF isn't a rangefinder, it will never replace the rangefinder!! I could not detect any lagging in the Q's EVF. Its contrast is a fair bit lower than most optical finders I have used so far. I could make do with this EVF. I have yet to see any EFV with focus peaking which immediately lets me see where - exactly - the focus point lies, as the edges it outlines spread a bit in front and behind the plane of focus, of course. Given my visual acuity I would not like to depend on actually seeing in the VF whether the thing I want to be in focus is sharp or not. Hence, the RF is still superior to the EVF. For me, in any event, and for those 10% or so where it actually matters. But then, I would not buy the Q, anyway, because I'm not fond of lenses with a focal length of 28mm and I'm not fond, either, of pictures with only 7MP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 17, 2015 Share #7 Posted June 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I find the EVF outstanding...I am a longtime rangefinder shooter and I honestly did not find it unsettling to make the switch. The advantages are obviously that you can now see the results of your exposure, you have additional info available and its quick to focus. I have tried Fuji and Sony in the past and always returned to my M...but in this case I feel very close to my M. Also the switch between manual and AF is seamless. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsv Posted June 17, 2015 Share #8 Posted June 17, 2015 One software (?) issue: When switching to EVF only, review, change in menu needs to be done when you can only see the EVF not the screen on the back. Trust that is an easy fix in software. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernie.lcf Posted June 17, 2015 Share #9 Posted June 17, 2015 The Leica Q's EVF is currently industry leading with almost double the resolution compared to the next runner up. It's fast and does not show the delays we experience with the M-240 viewfinder or with the T viewfinder. The only thing one might complain about is the fact that the extreme corners are a little difficult to see. This reminds me a lot of the M8 viewfinder, where the outer most edges area also a hint blurry. Again, this is the extreme corners only. Comparing the EVF (of the Q) to the RF viewfinder of my M8.2, I don't see any real advantages with the RF anymore. The EVF is 100% accurate vs. the RF even with parallax correction. There is no viewfinder blocking. Getting things spot on sharp with the RF is not the easiest task. I find it easier to manual focus with fokus peaking or the zoomed view (that is quite a bit nicer than with the T, for instance, because the zoomed image stays sharp). I am currently debating with my inner self whether I should sell the M8.2. One software (?) issue: When switching to EVF only, review, change in menu needs to be done when you can only see the EVF not the screen on the back. Trust that is an easy fix in software. Yes, I suppose they should implement something similar to the X-Vario where it would let you configure whether some information should be shown on the active display (EVF or LCD) or always on a certain display (e.g. always PLAY on screen) 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 17, 2015 Share #10 Posted June 17, 2015 One software (?) issue: When switching to EVF only, review, change in menu needs to be done when you can only see the EVF not the screen on the back. Trust that is an easy fix in software. That is already an option Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 17, 2015 Share #11 Posted June 17, 2015 The Leica Q's EVF is currently industry leading with almost double the resolution compared to the next runner up. Ive heard this said several times...where does this info come from? I don't believe that the resolution is even close to double the nearest competitor. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsv Posted June 17, 2015 Share #12 Posted June 17, 2015 That is already an option Thank you. Can you be so kind to point me to the option in the menu, please. I couldn't find it and I did RTFM. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 17, 2015 Share #13 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Thank you. Can you be so kind to point me to the option in the menu, please. I couldn't find it and I did RTFM. The option is limited at this point, hopefully it will be expanded with a FW update. Currently you can select EFV or LCD or Both. Go to "Display Settings" The first menu options allows you to select: LCD (disables EVF) Auto-low (this is both displays) Auto- high (again both displays) EVF (this is EVF only leaving the LCD black) Edited June 17, 2015 by digitalfx Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernie.lcf Posted June 17, 2015 Share #14 Posted June 17, 2015 Ive heard this said several times...where does this info come from? I don't believe that the resolution is even close to double the nearest competitor. Leica Q is 3,7 MP Competiton is at 2 or 2 point something (in the lower end) So, resolution is anywhere between 1,6 or 1,9x Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 17, 2015 Share #15 Posted June 17, 2015 Competition? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alee Posted June 17, 2015 Share #16 Posted June 17, 2015 It's not a true 3.7... it's interleaved RGB, showing slightly over 1mpx of each color at each refresh. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 17, 2015 Share #17 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Not close to double...a quick search found these, not sure which camera is the second highest res, but the Panasonic GX7 is 2.746MP thats 33% less and the Sony A7s is 2.36 MP- 55% Still a remarkable improvement, but not double. and then you have to consider this: It's not a true 3.7... it's interleaved RGB, showing slightly over 1mpx of each color at each refresh. While the EVF is very nice, the apparent difference between it and the A7s is not that big of a difference. Edited June 17, 2015 by digitalfx Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsv Posted June 17, 2015 Share #18 Posted June 17, 2015 The option is limited at this point, hopefully it will be expanded with a FW update. Currently you can select EFV or LCD or Both. Go to "Display Settings" The first menu options allows you to select: LCD (disables EVF) Auto-low (this is both displays) Auto- high (again both displays) EVF (this is EVF only leaving the LCD black) Thank you, it just confirmed my findings. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Share #19 Posted June 17, 2015 While the EVF is very nice, the apparent difference between it and the A7s is not that big of a difference. Agreed - coming from an RX1R I was just a tad disappointed in the Q finder - it is really good, but not imo far ahead of the RX1R's (which of course is external, but I'm only talking about the actual display quality here). I do also experience quite odd colour effects when wearing my sun glasses (which are prescription glasses so I can't just not wear them), which I don't get with the Sony. I assume this is due to the "interleaved RGB" cleverness. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 17, 2015 Share #20 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Agreed - coming from an RX1R I was just a tad disappointed in the Q finder - it is really good, but not imo far ahead of the RX1R's (which of course is external, but I'm only talking about the actual display quality here). I do also experience quite odd colour effects when wearing my sun glasses (which are prescription glasses so I can't just not wear them), which I don't get with the Sony. I assume this is due to the "interleaved RGB" cleverness. Its likely do to them being polarized. This is quite common and not unique to the Q. Its always best to avoid sunglasses when using a EVF. The RX1R finder is 2359k-Dot Resolution Edited June 17, 2015 by digitalfx Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.