Jump to content

SL

Likaleica

By Likaleica
in Leica S System

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply
kkonkkrete

kkonkkrete

Posted
Posted

EVF's have a looooong way to go before they are like looking through an optical viewfinder on any of the serious medium format cameras.  Seriously, no comparison between the Q viewfinder and the S, Hassy or PhaseOne.  Not even close.  

 

Plus the camera has to be powered up to see anything with an EVF, which is annoying (to me).

Link to post
Share on other sites
johnloumiles

johnloumiles

Posted
Posted

Definitely agreed. I think there is a line between the two that isn't based on technology, but rather two versions of reality. Some day maybe they will have digital eyeglasses that let you zoom in on stuff, but that doesn't mean people won't want to wear their regular old fashioned glasses. One is a window into the real world and the other is a digital projection of that same world. The best technology will combine them but never completely erase the former.

 

So we agree that most actually prefer an optical finder - even if it's dead technology according to some?

 

Dead technology which is still used in the top models from most manufacturers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wildlightphoto

wildlightphoto

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So we agree that most actually prefer an optical finder - even if it's dead technology according to some?

 

Dead technology which is still used in the top models from most manufacturers.

 

No we don't all agree on a blanket preference for an optical viewfinder.  Of the optical viewfinders providing a TTL view on a current-model camera with a 24mm x 36mm sensor there are none I'd prefer over a good EVF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Printmaker

Printmaker

Posted
Posted

There is plenty of room in the Leica universe for S cameras as well as M and M/Q.

 

Imagine having a S for studio work, and a M with 35 and 50 mm lenses combined with a M/Q with 21 (24) and 90 (75/135) lenses for location work. I know I'd rather use a rangefinder for 35 and 50 mm lenses and a good EVF for 21 and 90 mm lenses. This kit like that wouldn't weigh that much and the cameras would provide back up for each other. Then add a few good autofocus zooms and long telephoto lenses to round things out. AF mounts and adaptors for legacy M and R lenses would also be necessary. Probably half of the forum readers with M style cameras would jump on board.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mjrp

mjrp

Posted
Posted

It's perfectly acceptable for people to like different things, there's no universal here. An evf with wysiwyg doesn't work for me personally, I hate looking in to shadow areas and the evf overexposes light areas or looking in to highlights and all the shadows block up, I know what the final image will be, I need the viewfinder to frame it and get the essential elements in. I guess if you can't visualise your shot without actually seeing how it will look in your viewfinder then evf is great but it's not for everyone. I hated using mf lenses and the evf zooms in, great for that one section of focus but you lose the whole framing, there's no spontaneity for me but I appreciate others love focus peaking, zooming in and all that stuff. Maybe it's just human nature to dismiss things that don't fit with what you do but honestly, the idea that one type of vf is better than the other for all people is just absurd.

 

There is a lot of choice for everyone, thankfully, I appreciate the S viewfinder is incredible after years of shooting Nikon, focus peaking is one thing that solves a problem that doesn't exist with the S, you can see what's in focus very easily but some will need it so it's great that there are options, long may that continue. Maybe people can just be a little more accepting of the fact that what works for them may not work for others? My choice is better than your choice is just pointless. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
peterv

peterv

Posted
Posted

I respect and understand that threads have their own dynamics, but I really doubt that Tim (Likaleica) started this thread here in the S forum to begin yet another EVF/OVF discussion.

 

So I'll repeat here what I said in the long M typ 240 subforum thread:

 

Though I'm very happy with my S2-P, I wouldn't mind having a second Leica (SL, FF) body with CMOS sensor on which I could use my S lenses, through a Leica adapter, of course. Looking at the MTF's of the S lenses, they'd work great on FF corner to corner. They'd be bigger than strictly needed, but that would not bother me. And if I'd want a smaller, more agile camera for events and such, I could just bring the SL with one or two lenses in it's native mount.

 

It would be great if the SL also allowed for the CS lenses to be used.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hoppyman

hoppyman

Posted
Posted

It seems odd that Leica didn't dump the prism and switch to an EVF in the latest S model. Sticking with outdated tech that no one wants.

 

While I suspect that SL is very likely to be mirrorless, I don't understand this argument at all for the medium/pro format (I am guessing the SL will be 24x36?). The significant sub-niche larger format competition have continued with OVF as well of course. Each of us to our own preferences naturally and these may be influenced by how each of us use each type of camera. I have about 15000 frames with my S2 in studio.

 

I do plan to upgrade to the Typ 007 (from my S2). My first action on getting the new camera will be to transplant the superb accessory screen from my S2 that has the micro prism collar and large central split image. Manual focus! The new camera adds quite a bit more capability and in fact is class leading in some aspects. The frame rate and buffer are obvious. For studio it means I shall be able to reliably tether or even control and view on an iPad including touch selection of focus points! My single regret is that it will need a new battery whereas my spare is nearly never used for my S2 with endurance exceeding 1000 frames in a day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hoppyman

hoppyman

Posted
Posted

When Leica started development on the 007 I suppose only a 2.4 million dot EVF would have been available but EVF technology is progressing at a fast pace. Who knows what the next iteration of the S will look like.

I get depressed every time I read these remarks from you MJH in light of your knowledge  and credibility ! ;-)

Well the Typ 007 ought to be good for 150000 frames, then I shall worry about what form the Typ 008 may take!

Link to post
Share on other sites
hoppyman

hoppyman

Posted
Posted

More discussion confusion then. Since this was started in the S forum I thought it was to separate S speculation from SL speculation which is currently in the M forum because we can't have an SL forum when the camera does not exist in the market yet!

 

if not then it is just more SL speculation that could stay with the current thread temporarily parked where it is!

Link to post
Share on other sites
jonoslack

jonoslack

Posted
Posted

So we agree that most actually prefer an optical finder - even if it's dead technology according to some?

 

Dead technology which is still used in the top models from most manufacturers.

I'd be amazed if the S became an EVF camera . . . . . 

 

But I think this is an interesting point, after a month with the 007, and years with my M cameras -  I can easily say that I prefer an optical finder. On the other hand, the EVF in the Q is excellent (if a little small, and being able to see the exposure and the white balance together with the depth of field, boost in low light, focus peaking etc. etc. are all real advantages (who can deny it). So for me it's a kind of double edged sword - I like an optical finder  . . . . but I appreciate the benefits of an EVF (and very quickly forget I'm using one when I'm shooting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
johnloumiles

johnloumiles

Posted
Posted

And that's one of the worst side effects of digital photography and the EVF specifically. There is no magic left. Those rolls of film waiting to be developed and the mystery that they hold. Always counting on at least one frame coming out completely different then how you pictured when you shot it. Most of the time the simple equation of aperture and shutter speed will provide a reliable outcome on both film and digital but it's not the same. At least with the OVF you can still have the best of both worlds. If you need to check its there on the back of the camera but if you want to ignore it that's just as easy. An EVF, while necessary in some cases, is a wheelchair for people who can walk. No reason to kill and bury the last few remaining cameras that don't follow the slow march to Superman 3 territory.

 

http://www.herogohome.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Superman3Robotize.jpg

 

 

 

WYSIWYG

Link to post
Share on other sites
lct

lct

Posted
Posted

Well you asked didn't you so i just answered: WYSIWYG because it sounds obvious to me. I, too, prefer good OVFs to mediocre EVFs and i will always use rangefinders i guess but i like good DSLRs and EVILs as well so i'm not interested in opposing them at all. YMMV.

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...