Jump to content

NEW M.. This year.. This Fall...

EdwardM

By EdwardM
in Leica M (Type 240 / 262)

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
asiafish

asiafish

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure this really stands up, Jaap. Repetition doesn't make it true. 

 

Two difficulties with your statement:

 

(1) it didn't meet the standard of the rest of the camera - good enough wasn't really sufficient

 

(2) the fact that Olympus released version 2 almost immediately after the M(240) was released, yet the camera was not compatible with version 2. 

 

As as I recall, the Sony EVFs were far superior at that time. I'm not knocking Leica, but that EVF, and not making it upgradable was a very serious error of judgment. In this electronic age, everything should be upgradable, if possible. The M(240) is a case in point - Leica's flagship stuck with an indifferent EVF on release. Very poor for a 3 year replacement cycle. 

 

This is is not one to hold out on, Jaap. Some of what Leica does is defensible - this isn't. 

 

The EVF2 was fantastic in 2010, was still decent in 2012, but in 2015 is woefully out of date.  Since Leica licensed the Olympus EVF for the M (and the X2 and X Vario), they should license the firmware to update those cameras to the EVF4, which was state of the art in 2013 and is still quite good today.  The reason it is easier to support the EVF4 instead is that it is 100% pin compatible with the older EVF2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mjh

mjh

Posted
Posted

Since Leica licensed the Olympus EVF for the M (and the X2 and X Vario), they should license the firmware to update those cameras to the EVF4, which was state of the art in 2013 and is still quite good today.

This has nothing to do with licensing. The M (Typ 240) cannot support the higher resolution EVF and never will. Like it or not but there you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Likaleica

Likaleica

Posted
Posted

As we are in a steep slope of EVF improvement, I worry about major purchase of a camera with today's EVF, which could seem slow and unresponsive in just a few years.  This is why I prefer the pentaprism SLR, but I also realize this will be going the way of the dinosaur.  I just hope that the slope of EVF improvement will flatten out enough to keep pace with my GAS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

The EVF2 was fantastic in 2010, was still decent in 2012, but in 2015 is woefully out of date.  Since Leica licensed the Olympus EVF for the M (and the X2 and X Vario), they should license the firmware to update those cameras to the EVF4, which was state of the art in 2013 and is still quite good today.  The reason it is easier to support the EVF4 instead is that it is 100% pin compatible with the older EVF2.

1. Leica never licensed the EVF2 from Olympus. Both Olympus and Leica purchased their EVF from Epson.

2. It has nothing to do with compatability. The cameras simply don't have the processing power for the EVF4.

Link to post
Share on other sites
IkarusJohn

IkarusJohn

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As we are in a steep slope of EVF improvement, I worry about major purchase of a camera with today's EVF, which could seem slow and unresponsive in just a few years.  This is why I prefer the pentaprism SLR, but I also realize this will be going the way of the dinosaur.  I just hope that the slope of EVF improvement will flatten out enough to keep pace with my GAS.

 

We have an apparently fabulous single lens reflex viewfinder in the S(007), and an outstanding optical viewfinder in the M camera.  What's missing is an EVF of a similar standard (though the EVF in the Q camera is reassuring).  For the new system camera, I guess we assume that the EVF is of sufficient quality that it will be built in and won't need to be upgraded for the life of that camera (a huge assumption, in my view).

 

For the M camera, I still believe it is a disgrace that Leica produced a camera which could not cope with upgraded EVFs (especially as the technology of the release EVF was stunningly average compared to what Sony had on offer and what Olympus was able to provide shortly after the release of the M(240)).  The black out of the otherwise excellent EVF for the T drove me to distraction, and to sell a camera I otherwise really liked.

 

If Leica is going to play in the digital game, these are the sort of issues which should have been sorted out years ago ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
IkarusJohn

IkarusJohn

Posted
Posted

Years ago? EVFs were on the bottom of the heap back then. Remember the Digilux2? Not bad in its time, but well... That is the price of being on the steep part of the curve of a technical development...

 

Not entirely accurate, Jaap.

 

When the M(240) was released (that was years ago), Leica started behind the 8 ball (not very smart considering it was the third digital M), with no ability to resolve the problem ... That's pure incompetence.  How can I say such an outrageous thing?  Well, even in the prehistoric ages of 2012 (ahem - don't believe it), the EVF2 was poor, shortly replaced, but more critically Leica either didn't realise it, or did nothing about it.

 

So, yes - Leica should have sorted this sort of thing years ago by either choosing a different EVF supplier, or ensuring that the processor they used could cope with an upgrade to what was a very ordinary EVF.

 

This has nothing to do with the Digilux2, whatever that is ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter Kilmister

Peter Kilmister

Posted
Posted

Whenever I have used my EVF it has been to use a macro extension tube that defeats the RF. EVF works well, although I could have used LV. (EVF is clearer, IMO.)

Time never bothered me. I wanted one or two shots. Fps was never a consideration.

Practical need, practical solution, job done.

 

Who needs an upgrade when the solution is already good enough?

Link to post
Share on other sites
mjh

mjh

Posted
Posted

I just hope that the slope of EVF improvement will flatten out enough to keep pace with my GAS.

Not this year I’m afraid, and not as far as Leica is concerned. Which doesn’t change the fact that there is only so much the M (Typ 240) can do, and that doesn’t include driving a higher resolution EVF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

Not entirely accurate, Jaap.

 

When the M(240) was released (that was years ago), Leica started behind the 8 ball (not very smart considering it was the third digital M), with no ability to resolve the problem ... That's pure incompetence.  How can I say such an outrageous thing?  Well, even in the prehistoric ages of 2012 (ahem - don't believe it), the EVF2 was poor, shortly replaced, but more critically Leica either didn't realise it, or did nothing about it.

 

So, yes - Leica should have sorted this sort of thing years ago by either choosing a different EVF supplier, or ensuring that the processor they used could cope with an upgrade to what was a very ordinary EVF.

 

This has nothing to do with the Digilux2, whatever that is ...

The Digilux 2 was Leica's first EVF camera... :rolleyes: (2003) in cooperation with Panasonic

Anyway, whatever we may think of the EVF2 now, in 2010/2011 when the M240 was designed, the thing was pretty much the best on the market, and considering it is just an auxiliary system, I don't think we could have expected more. Everything else is " it would have been nice if" thinking. And yes, Olympus was lucky their processor could just make it to the EVF4 (maybe they can afford shorter R&D lead times, I don't know) - which is obsolete by now too...

 

You'll just have to wait what the near future brings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

Thanks Michael.  I was more thinking of the purported SL - my dream camera, if true.  I'm with Doug Herr on this.  I would love to be able to use my R glass on a >24mp Leica with a fast, clear EVF.  

That would indeed be nice, but it would be a dual system again, like in the R days, an M for daily work, an E? for long lenses etc.

I would prefer an M with a state of the art stick-on EVF or a built-in one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mjh

mjh

Posted
Posted

Thanks Michael.  I was more thinking of the purported SL - my dream camera, if true.  I'm with Doug Herr on this.  I would love to be able to use my R glass on a >24mp Leica with a fast, clear EVF.

And why not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
IkarusJohn

IkarusJohn

Posted
Posted

The Digilux 2 was Leica's first EVF camera... :rolleyes: (2003) in cooperation with Panasonic

Anyway, whatever we may think of the EVF2 now, in 2010/2011 when the M240 was designed, the thing was pretty much the best on the market, and considering it is just an auxiliary system, I don't think we could have expected more. Everything else is " it would have been nice if" thinking. And yes, Olympus was lucky their processor could just make it to the EVF4 (maybe they can afford shorter R&D lead times, I don't know) - which is obsolete by now too...

 

You'll just have to wait what the near future brings.

 

Ah, Jaap.  At least you are a consistent apologist!

 

If the Digilux2 was released in 2003, that makes Leica's incompetence with the EVF2 even worse.

 

It wasn't luck that enabled Olympus to use the later technology - they included a processor on a cheap(ish) digital camera that could cope with the upgrade, where the more expensive Leica couldn't.

 

Perhaps the EVF2 was very good when the M(240) was designed, but I'm sorry Jaap it makes no sense to fix in stone a digital design in 2010 for a camera released in 2013 when you've had experience of EVF and digital technology since at least 2003.

 

I live for the day when you acknowledge - "Yes, the M(240) is very good in certain respects; but as a digital device, Leica dropped the ball in many other respects - not least designing a camera to standards in 2010 and releasing it in 2013 without the ability to take advantage of improvements in third party supplied accessories".  Actually, no I don't.

 

I guess we all have blind spots ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...