jmschuh Posted June 17, 2015 Share #21 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) 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 funny mathematics... To double the resolution you need four times more pixel (x and y direction) and not 2 times. The resolution of the Q viewfinder is 1280 x 960 pixel. The next best viewfinder has a resolution of 1280 x 720 pixel. The difference is not really visible. My X-T1 has a 2,3MP viewfinder (1024 x 768) with a magnification of 0,77x, which is the best viewfinder I know before the Leica Q. But also in direct comparison the difference between the Leica Q and the X-T1 viewfinder is not significantly visible. Cheers! Edited June 17, 2015 by SignalRauschen Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Hi jmschuh, Take a look here The Viewfinder. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanJW Posted June 17, 2015 Share #22 Posted June 17, 2015 Well, I don't care about the arithmetic. The Q EVF is the best I have ever used, and rivals the OVF for brightness. It is still an EVF, which means you may not know exatctly what you are focusing on even in Manual mode, but it is really easy to use. And I think Leica was brilliant about the 28/35/50 framelines because you can (as I do), set it with the 35mm framelines, and still see what is outside them. How this will work when Leica gets around to doing it with interchangeable lenses, I don't know, but I do think Leica is on the right track. As I have said before, what would be ideal is an EVF like this one combined with a switchable OVF with an optical rangefinder (or a digital one, but that possibility is sheer conjecture) sort of like what Fuji did, but with Leica quality EVF and Leica quality OVF. That to me would be splendid. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsv Posted June 17, 2015 Share #23 Posted June 17, 2015 funny mathematics... To double the resolution you need four times more pixel (x and y direction) and not 2 times. The resolution of the Q viewfinder is 1280 x 960 pixel. The next best viewfinder has a resolution of 1280 x 960 pixel. The difference is not really visible. My X-T1 hat a 2,3MP viewfinder (1024 x 768) with a magnification of 0,77x, which is the best viewfinder I know before the Leica Q. But also in direct comparison the difference between the Leica Q and the X-T1 viewfinder is not significantly visible. Cheers! I find the difference quite remarkable. Not sure the difference is only in display size. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 17, 2015 Share #24 Posted June 17, 2015 I find the difference quite remarkable. Not sure the difference is only in display size. Well, I don't care about the arithmetic. The Q EVF is the best I have ever used, and rivals the OVF for brightness. But compared to what?? Without telling us what you are comparing it too it really doesn't help much. Personally I think its better than the A7s EVF, but nowhere near 2X better. What are you comparing it to? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsv Posted June 17, 2015 Share #25 Posted June 17, 2015 But compared to what?? Without telling us what you are comparing it too it really doesn't help much. Personally I think its better than the A7s EVF, but nowhere near 2X better. What are you comparing it to? As I said before, I compared it to the Fuji X-T1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsv Posted June 17, 2015 Share #26 Posted June 17, 2015 Well, I don't care about the arithmetic. The Q EVF is the best I have ever used, and rivals the OVF for brightness. It is still an EVF, which means you may not know exatctly what you are focusing on even in Manual mode, but it is really easy to use. And I think Leica was brilliant about the 28/35/50 framelines because you can (as I do), set it with the 35mm framelines, and still see what is outside them. How this will work when Leica gets around to doing it with interchangeable lenses, I don't know, but I do think Leica is on the right track. As I have said before, what would be ideal is an EVF like this one combined with a switchable OVF with an optical rangefinder (or a digital one, but that possibility is sheer conjecture) sort of like what Fuji did, but with Leica quality EVF and Leica quality OVF. That to me would be splendid. +1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 17, 2015 Share #27 Posted June 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) As I said before, I compared it to the Fuji X-T1 Thanks, it has the same resolution as the A7s...I see a noticeable improvement in quality vs the A7s. Not even close to double, but it is noticable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsv Posted June 17, 2015 Share #28 Posted June 17, 2015 Thanks, it has the same resolution as the A7s...I see a noticeable improvement in quality vs the A7s. Not even close to double, but it is noticable. I don't think the difference is only is resolution, but appreciate the facts provided. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsv Posted June 17, 2015 Share #29 Posted June 17, 2015 I'm not knowledgable at all on the tech site of things. My understanding is that the perceived quality depends on a combination of many different factors, including but not limited to resolution and algorithms used for: colors, color correction, lens and lens correction, correction of dynamic range, correction for contrast et cetera, noise. My understanding is, it is not just about resolution. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted June 17, 2015 Share #30 Posted June 17, 2015 But compared to what?? Without telling us what you are comparing it too it really doesn't help much. Personally I think its better than the A7s EVF, but nowhere near 2X better. What are you comparing it to? That's a fair question. I was comparing it what I have used in the past. That includes: Leica EVF2 EVF for Leica T Sony Nex7 Sony A7r Olympus EPL Sony RX100miii I have looked through a friend's Oly EPLM5 (not sure I have the nomencalture correct) but not used it extensively. I didn't say it was twice as good as anything because I have no way to measure that and it is subjective anyhow. Someone else said it was 2x something. I did say the Q was the best I have ever used and I stand by that. Being disappointed by EVFs was something I had grown used to. When I first picked it up and looked through it, I then looked at the front of the camera because I was looking for the rangefinder window. No other EVF I have used ever caused that kind of reaction (or smile on the face). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share #31 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Thanks for all the replies so far. From my perspective, the standard against which the Q viewfinder and any other EVF should be judged is not the best of all the other EVFs, (even if it were twice as good by some measure or other) but the best Leica rangefinder as found in the M. There are many pros and cons for each system involved here, which is why I'm interested in the reactions of people who are actually using both. A good EVF confers some real advantages in regular use, such as no need to worry about calibration, and the ability to see what you get. But I'm interested in the subjective element of what it feels like to use compared with a clear piece of glass and an instinctively familiar focussing patch, when the subject rather than the camera is the important matter at hand. What I've heard so far is very encouraging. Edited June 17, 2015 by Peter H Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 17, 2015 Share #32 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) I have been using a rangefinder for 40 years, my first experience was with a Leica IIIf. Over the years I have used pretty much every version of the M...my first M was an M2, I've owned an M3, M4, M4P, M5, M6, M8, M9, MM and currently shoot with an M240. Ive had the Q for 5 days now and the EVF is amazing, the transition to an EVF was seamless. I don't miss the rangefinder and I find that I'm actually quicker focusing the Q than I am the M240. There are other obvious advantages like being able to see your exposure results instantly and having additional camera data available. BTW- no comparison to the M240's EVF, which is nearly unusable in comparison. Edited June 17, 2015 by digitalfx 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardK Posted August 13, 2019 Share #33 Posted August 13, 2019 Compared to my Leica Q the Olympus EM1 mk2 is head and shoulders better. I can adjust the brightness and the colour temperature easily on the Oly as yet I cannot see where that can be done on the Q, perhaps that’s something that Leica should address in a firmware update imo. It may be that it’s a substandard component, the picture IQ isn’t affected and since I don’t have a Leica dealership near to where I live I guess I’ll have to live with it. 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.