Thoughts on the rangefinder and the M

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

LOL! That has seriously got to be the biggest load of crap I have ever read on here.

 

I did a kids clothing lifestyle shoot recently in that a lot of the good images were with the subject way off center out of the AF sensor area for use in banner ads, spreads that had a lot of text. The two lenses I used were both the Nikon 20mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 wide open and it was easy as pie to nail focus with them in the majority of the shots. These kids were between 4-7 so they moved around a *lot*.

 

.

Well I have shot many cameras from Sony, Nikon, Canon and Leica.

My views are purely based on experience

Lucky for you that you can focus well on the manual focus systems of DSLRs

Unless you are using a radically new system I haven't seen I stand by my comments for myself and most of the people I have spoken to.

Lastly in terms of saying Leica M is best at everything is something I certainly never said. I did say the MF system is the best I have ever used and I stand by that, including focus peaking on the latest Sony's (which I love BTW).

[colonel]

There is aanother category of those who bought into Leica because it is jewelry and they never use it. It's like those guys who buy expensive sports cars for their living room!

Actually statistically there are more people who buy Nikon D4 and Canon 1DX for jewellery

[mmradman]

Actually statistically there are more people who buy Nikon D4 and Canon 1DX for jewellery

There are more people who buy Nikon or Canon than Leica period.

[colonel]

There are more people who buy Nikon or Canon than Leica period.

exactly

[Wayne]

I am reasonably new to rangefinder use. As I familiarize myself with the use of the rangefinder I find myself becoming faster and faster at obtaining good focus. It is not so much that my eyes are becoming more accustomed to the rangefinder patch, it is that I have noticed, the faster I rotate the focus ring, the more clearly apparent the contrast between the point good focus and out of focus. So, for me, obtaining good focus is not so much recognizing the point of good focus, but rather, being able to stop the focus ring at the exact moment of good focus. The passage of time, and the gaining of experience, renders exciting improvement is use and result. It makes me want to use the cameras....Not so much because of the possibility of getting the perfect photo, but because it feels like personal growth as a photographer.

 

It is one of the most engaging activities I have ever experienced in camera use. It is like a pursuit: the rangefinder and lens show me the point of perfect focus; the question is, am I good enough to capture it? If I am not, I will get closer tomorrow.  A great photo from any of my rangefinder cameras- M2, M8, IIIc, or IIIG- carries a real sense of personal achievement. Given that most of the photos I produce are of small consequence to anyone but myself, this sense of achievement may be the greatest value I receive from the Leicas........A type of value I do not recall receiving from any other type or brand of camera. 

[Mornnb]

LOL! That has seriously got to be the biggest load of crap I have ever read on here.

 

I did a kids clothing lifestyle shoot recently in that a lot of the good images were with the subject way off center out of the AF sensor area for use in banner ads, spreads that had a lot of text. The two lenses I used were both the Nikon 20mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 wide open and it was easy as pie to nail focus with them in the majority of the shots. These kids were between 4-7 so they moved around a *lot*. 

 

I get what the M system is good for, I get paid well to use it. I just don't get the trying to make it the king of every task on forums like these. Where people consistently lose credibility on here is when things like this come up and all you guys can do is put your noses in the air and claim that not only is Leica good, everything else sucks. 

 

I keep my Canon system because the Leica is not the best at everything. Shooting sports and certain events an autofocusing DSLR has a definite advantage.

I find the M240 to be understated in terms what it is capable of. I find it to have a much better low-ISO sensor than the 5D Mark III and for that reason it makes a better landscape camera, except for when one needs an exposure longer than 1 minute. Or when one can not miss a moment by waiting for a second noise-reduction exposure.

[bencoyote]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The things that I find most appealing about the RF over AF how the interaction between the photographer and the camera works.

• With AF in some modes the camera  picks the focus point and you have to have this little frustrating conversation with the camera saying "no not that" "not that" "yeah that".
• Or if I want to shoot from the hip or chest in an AF mode like this I have no idea at all what the camera is going to focus on. (I know this is not strictly about the RF because when I'm shooting from the hip, I'm not actually using the RF or even the viewfinder. I'm using the focus scale, a zone for focusing, or just using my last shot's focus.)
• Or in other AF modes you tell the camera to focus over there. This usually means, touching here or there, or pressing buttons or moving a joystick or something to tell the camera what you want to focus on. This takes time and that time is usually longer than the time it takes to actually focus the lens. The vendors always publish AF speed but they never publish the time it takes to move the cursor to the right spot or select the focus point. Or the time it takes to set the AF mode for a particular situation of it isn't correct.
• Again if it is from the hip and I'm shooting without looking, I likely don't recall where the focus point is set to. (Yeah I know I'm talking about a focus scale here not The RF.)
• Mo matter what AF mode you choose every single frame the camera tries to focus again. A pretty substantial percentage of the time, the previous shot is going to be nearly the same distance as the this shot and I don't need to focus again.
• Having to take into account the AF lag when trying to nail the decisive moment. I'd rather prefocus and just trip the shutter.
• With The RF and MF it is just me and the camera. If the picture doesn't turn out, it is not the camera's fault. It is mine, mine alone. We each have our job. Mine is to compose and focus. It's is to record the image. It's dumb, I'm smart. It's my fault when it didn't work not some anonymous bloke in Japan. There is never anybody else to blame, I continue to love the camera because it always does its job. With other AF cameras sometimes the camera misses the shot and I begin to get frustrated with it. It missed the moment and our relationship becomes one of focused communication, something like, "what do I need to do to tell you this is the thing that I want in focus (you stupid machine.)"
• No zoom lenses. Yeah I actually consider that a good thing. It makes you really do foot zoom and choose your lens carefully.

To be fair what I don't like about RF

• Macro is practically impossible. (Yeah I've tried live view and macro adapter but we're talking about the RF here.)
• Long telephoto is impossible. 
• I'm not a good enough photographer to pull focus on a quickly moving subject not in the focal plane. Tracking AF is a win. My trick is not to use burst mode but rather to prefocus and grab the moment.
• (I consider this a positive thing most of the time but it does get in the way from time to time.) Taking a selfie with my M is basically impossible. My arm is shorter than the minimum focal distance, ;-) But really that minimum focal distance with a RF is a pain at times,
• No zoom lenses. Yeah here too. They are slow, and they don't render as well but in the right conditions they really are handy. I think it is such a mistake that the kit lens that comes with most cameras is a zoom lens. In my opinion a zoom lens is an expert's lens. You need to know not only how one FD behaves. You need to know how to handle all those FDs and what they are best used for. And because they are often slower you need to be better at composing rather than just using bokeh to isolate your subject.

All of those add up for me into needing a non rangefinder camera as well as my M.

[ramarren]

I like the M because it is a simple camera, easy to control and understand. It has very significant limitations in what it can do, and sometimes that is a huge help. The lenses are excellent, the rest is reliable and consistent. No surprises or unknowns. 

 

The M is not my only camera because it is not capable of doing well all the things I like to do in photography. That's okay. What it does, it does superbly; my other cameras do what they do superbly as well. The right tool for a job.. 

[kkonkkrete]

I can't remember the last time I missed a shot with a DSLR because of AF problems.  Unless I'm using a tripod, I just use the central focus point and do focus+recompose, just like with a rangefinder.  I can think of conditions that make AF fail (e.g. shooting through grass / leaves / a wire fence).  But under those rare circumstances, I just switch to manual.  Works perfectly.  I certainly wouldn't say that focussing is a domain in which M is clearer superior to DSLRs.

 

For me the rangefinder + manual focus + small size of the M is about taking a different approach to photography (which also delivers gorgeous artistic images due to the great glass and non-standard colour rendition).  It's not about selecting a technically 'superior' focus mechanism.  Both DSLR and rangefinder have advantages and disadvantages.

[Bill Livingston]

Thank you for posting that... Completely agree.

 

My favourite focussing system was on my Nikon F2 and before that, my Pentax Spotmatic F.

 

Both SLR cameras, obviously, and both had split image, microprism, fresnel screen focussing. This meant, on an SLR the focus area was always the same, small area of focus regardless of focal length, and very fast and precise.

 

The rangefinder focus has a lot if disadvantages, not least that the focus area is not the same size regardless of focal length and on longer lenses is a much larger percentage of the picture area than on a shorter focal length. It just isn't selective enough. Especially at wider apertures and longer focal length.

 

It's one of the reasons live view (or an optical solution) works for those who use longer focal lengths, or you would use an SLR/DSLR or a mirrorless solution.

 

If you like clear, bright, accurate optical viewfinders and use longer or wider focal lengths, then a DSLR/SLR solution is the way to go... If you are happy using an EVF, then mirrorless is fine.

 

If, like me, you found that your style of photography tends, in the main anyway, to be in the 28-50mm focal length and only occasionally goes outside that range, and you want the simplicity and manual control that most of us grew up with, then the M is probably the only solution you can buy, new anyway, today.

 

I don't particularly like rangefinder focussing. It's not that fast for me and it's not that selective at different focal lengths. I would far rather use split image on an SLR/DSLR or a Q type AF superimposed on the optical rangefinder.

 

The reason I love my M is its build quality, it's simplicity, it's size, the feel and the fact you still feel connected to the image. Most importantly though, is the fact that my M images 'look' completely different to any other camera I use. Even non photographers comment on colour, rendering or just plain 'style' that seems to come from my camera. It's not me, I take pictures on other things too... it's either a 'look' that is unique to Leica, or I think differently when using it.

 

Given that I can rarely identify the camera used when looking at others' photos, I'm inclined to think it's the latter.

 

So I love my M and my M glass because of what I do with it. I know it's limitations, I know it's strengths, for me anyway.

 

Heresy, I know, but the means of focussing is absolutely not the reason I bought it... and, for me anyway, it's actually the rangefinder focussing I like least about it.

 

But it's the compromise I will make as no other camera today gives me anything like the feel, the control, the sheer pleasure of the shooting experience and, most of all, the results I now get...

[bencoyote]

I can't remember the last time I missed a shot with a DSLR because of AF problems.  Unless I'm using a tripod, I just use the central focus point and do focus+recompose, just like with a rangefinder.  I can think of conditions that make AF fail (e.g. shooting through grass / leaves / a wire fence).  But under those rare circumstances, I just switch to manual.  Works perfectly.  

Tried your phone lately?

 

When you look at other camera's AF system being demonstrated, they don't use the center focus, focus+recompose they want you to use all of those 49 or 81 point phase detect focus points spread out across the frame. Then the camera does some sort of heuristic to automagically select which one it should use.

 

The center focus, focus+recompose is your adaptation to more reliably communicate with the camera what you want to focus on. Using that is fine but the fact that you do that suggests that sometime in the distant past you got so frustrated with the camera's heuristics at selecting a focal point that you decided to quit using it.

 

The one problem with that approach is that you really can't shoot from the hip or chest with the camera in that mode or you'll end up focusing on something in the background. You actually have to look through the viewfinder to make sure that your subject is centered. Unless you are really lucky and your subject just happens to be in the center, of your frame, you must use the full AF grid and hope that the camera picks the "right" point to focus on. Or you need to use MF.

[Mornnb]

The things that I find most appealing about the RF over AF how the interaction between the photographer and the camera works.

• With AF in some modes the camera  picks the focus point and you have to have this little frustrating conversation with the camera saying "no not that" "not that" "yeah that".
• Or if I want to shoot from the hip or chest in an AF mode like this I have no idea at all what the camera is going to focus on. (I know this is not strictly about the RF because when I'm shooting from the hip, I'm not actually using the RF or even the viewfinder. I'm using the focus scale, a zone for focusing, or just using my last shot's focus.)
• Or in other AF modes you tell the camera to focus over there. This usually means, touching here or there, or pressing buttons or moving a joystick or something to tell the camera what you want to focus on. This takes time and that time is usually longer than the time it takes to actually focus the lens. The vendors always publish AF speed but they never publish the time it takes to move the cursor to the right spot or select the focus point. Or the time it takes to set the AF mode for a particular situation of it isn't correct.

 

AF is a complicated tool and just like manual focus one needs to figure out how to master it to get good results with the camera.

Check out this video from Canon:

 

 

 

• Again if it is from the hip and I'm shooting without looking, I likely don't recall where the focus point is set to. (Yeah I know I'm talking about a focus scale here not The RF.)
• Mo matter what AF mode you choose every single frame the camera tries to focus again. A pretty substantial percentage of the time, the previous shot is going to be nearly the same distance as the this shot and I don't need to focus again.
• Having to take into account the AF lag when trying to nail the decisive moment. I'd rather prefocus and just trip the shutter.
• With The RF and MF it is just me and the camera. If the picture doesn't turn out, it is not the camera's fault. It is mine, mine alone. We each have our job. Mine is to compose and focus. It's is to record the image. It's dumb, I'm smart. It's my fault when it didn't work not some anonymous bloke in Japan. There is never anybody else to blame, I continue to love the camera because it always does its job. With other AF cameras sometimes the camera misses the shot and I begin to get frustrated with it. It missed the moment and our relationship becomes one of focused communication, something like, "what do I need to do to tell you this is the thing that I want in focus (you stupid machine.)"

 

 

With an autofocus camera, it's always your fault as well. You aren't picking the right AF mode. Or you haven't calibrated your lens. An Autofocus camera is if anything, more complicated and difficult to work with than a rangefinder. But just as capable if used well.

[Bill Livingston]

I can't and won't disagree with what you say in your final paragraph, but good grief, whenever I start to think about AF (and I do, more frequently than I care to admit) I will remember that video and thank god I have an M camera.

 

I could use an AF like the Q... or a hybrid, but I never, ever want to end up with something as awkward, slow or as intrusive as that...!

 

Sorry Mornb... I like your posts generally and as I said, I can't disagree with your conclusion... but I would shoot myself before I have a camera like that ever again...

[Loren]

 

The center focus, focus+recompose is your adaptation to more reliably communicate with the camera what you want to focus on. 

 

One problem with center focus and recompose approach is that it does not compensate for field curvature of the lens.

[kkonkkrete]

Tried your phone lately?

 

When you look at other camera's AF system being demonstrated, they don't use the center focus, focus+recompose they want you to use all of those 49 or 81 point phase detect focus points spread out across the frame. Then the camera does some sort of heuristic to automagically select which one it should use.

 

The center focus, focus+recompose is your adaptation to more reliably communicate with the camera what you want to focus on. Using that is fine but the fact that you do that suggests that sometime in the distant past you got so frustrated with the camera's heuristics at selecting a focal point that you decided to quit using it.

 

The one problem with that approach is that you really can't shoot from the hip or chest with the camera in that mode or you'll end up focusing on something in the background. You actually have to look through the viewfinder to make sure that your subject is centered. Unless you are really lucky and your subject just happens to be in the center, of your frame, you must use the full AF grid and hope that the camera picks the "right" point to focus on. Or you need to use MF.

 

Actually I find touch focus on the phone surprisingly good, but then again I hardly ever use a telephone for taking photos (I also hardly ever use my camera for making phonecalls).

 

The reason I focus-recompose with an AF camera is that it is consistent and predictable, same as a rangefinder.  I never miss shots due to AF problems with this method, therefore AF works adequately for me.  On the rare occasions I need to change focus point, I hit one button and turn the scroll wheel .. no menu diving.  It works fine.

 

When I want to shoot from the hip or chest, I pre-focus to a particular distance then switch to manual mode.  It works fine, never been a problem.  Composing is, but focus isn't.  Switching to manual mode when there is a switch on the side of the lens is trivial --- I use it all the time.  All the Canon lenses I've used hold their focus when you switch to manual from AF.

 

When I shoot macro (my main thing actually), I switch to manual and focus by swaying my whole body, using the very fast focus detection to aid me in determining when I've nailed the insect's or spider's eye.

 

So ... having AF on my DSLR has never caused me any problems, and it was not anything to do with focus that got me interested in the M.  It was other things.

 

Not knocking anyone else's approach or experience ... just saying AF works great for me.  Although I prefer many aspects of the M: small, discreet camera, stunning IQ, camera-not-covering-your-face when you try to interact with people, no blackout of viewfinder, seeing outside the frame, feeling of 'being in the action' for reportage photography ... all the many, well-documented advantages of the fantastic Leica experience.

[hepcat]

The evolution of these threads is fascinating...  and, it seems, predictable.  There are those of us who have embraced wholly the current DSLR viewfinder/AF systems and their forty-plus point focusing system with buttons, dials and wheels and for whom it works flawlessly.  Then there are those of us who use them out of necessity, but use the tried-and-true single sensor in the middle of the frame and re-frame method, and then there are those who are solidly in the rangefinder camp.

 

Folks try to compare disparate focusing systems and assign general value to one over another, but as a practical matter that can't be done.  Each is different and you have to know how to use each to its strengths for them to work for you.  I've used the Leica optical viewfinder/rangefinder for forty years, long enough for it to be second nature and for me it works fabulously for 90% of what I do.  That doesn't mean it's "better" than an EVF or DSLR pentaprism setup.  It just means that I'm more comfortable with it and I can accomplish more with it because of that familiarity.  I'm so comfortable with the Leica viewfinder/rangefinder that, while I'm right-handed, I've become left-eye dominant so I can leave the VF up to my left eye, and leave my right eye open... but blocked by the camera body.  I don't get eyestrain leaving the body up to my eye for extended periods, and it's completely comfortable. 

 

EVFs are improving, but are and cannot be anything but a tiny TV screen by which you are completely insulated from the world; much like watching CCTV security cameras.  DSLRS (and SLRS) with a pentaprism are still akin to looking through a paper tube... bright, but only give you that portion of the scene you can actually photograph.  But rangefinders allow you to be IN the scene; part of it...  and depending on the VF magnification, can allow you to see more of the scene than what the lens covers giving you the opportunity to see what's moving into or out of the frame.

 

The rangefinder isn't the best solution for every circumstance...  just most circumstances.  And for the few where it doesn't work well, there's live-view or the Visoflex III.  That doesn't mean that DSLRS and mirrorless don't have strengths; obviously they do, but my point here is that they ALL have limitations and they ALL have strengths and there cannot be a camera that can "do it all" and do it all elegantly, although I find that the Leica M series does most of what I need to do elegantly.  Each camera and focusing system is a compromise, which is why I back up my M9-P with an X-T1.  The X-T1 is probably the most competent mirrorless body I've used and I like it because of it's traditional control set.  Almost every function on the camera can be set directly by a dial; much like the Leica.  Unfortunately it's RAW files aren't the equal of the M9's...  but they're adequate and can be developed the way I want them to look. 

 

So, I've been doing photography commercially for almost 45 years, and I've used a LOT of camera brands in that time, but I find that the older I get the less I want to learn a new control set.  During the ten years I shot Olympus i believe they changed their command sets three times.  I found that really frustrating.  What that led to, though, is that I can manually set my camera to do what I want it to do as fast or faster than automation can, and I'm terribly frustrated by having to use joysticks, thumbwheels, buttons and menus.  Dial controls in traditional locations are straight-forward, easy to remember and easy to use.   And I confess that I don't really care how many focus points the AF has;  when the shot is critical, I use manual focus as AF has let me down too many times... either because it couldn't find focus in low-light, or it didn't think like I do and focused on the wrong thing.

 

Automation isn't inherently bad, I just find it frequently enough less accurate than I am about what I shoot that I don't trust it for much more than static scenery shots.  If the shot is critical, I don't even trust AWB.    I like the immediacy of the the combined viewfinder/rangefinder setup, and knowing that if the shot is screwed up, it's screwed up because I screwed it up, not because the camera couldn't perform what I was asking of it.

 

Like IkarusJohn, I doubt that the M series will ever be produced without a direct viewfinder...  how the rangefinder is implemented may be changed, but I expect that central rangefinder patch will always look the same in that bright, large, direct viewfinder.   

[pop]

The evolution of these threads is fascinating...  and, it seems, predictable.  There are those of us who (...) Then there are those of us who (..), and then there are those who (...)

I think you missed an important fraction: those who use whichever is both best suited for the job and at hand at the moment. That was my main reason for exchanging my M9 for an M (Typ 240), because my carrying capacity is limited both by muscular strength and will. I now have most often the RF camera with me, and when I prefer another way of shooting, I use it with the EVF which is quite good enough for me for most practical purposes.

[diogenis]

AF is a complicated tool and just like manual focus one needs to figure out how to master it to get good results with the camera.

Check out this video from Canon:

 

 

With an autofocus camera, it's always your fault as well. You aren't picking the right AF mode. Or you haven't calibrated your lens. An Autofocus camera is if anything, more complicated and difficult to work with than a rangefinder. But just as capable if used well

Only that Leica's manual RF system is nothing like what Canon show us here. This kind of engineering and implementation from Canon is totally in the wrong way. Ask anyone using Leica RF and he will tell you that decisions showed in that video that need like several seconds to complete, are common practice to Leica M users and all done under a second. All it takes is: decide where to focus, move the patches to overap, and then take the shot. But you see, Japanese always loved to press buttons and menuoptions, so yea, it's kinda counterproductive.

[Mornnb]

EVFs are improving, but are and cannot be anything but a tiny TV screen by which you are completely insulated from the world; much like watching CCTV security cameras.  DSLRS (and SLRS) with a pentaprism are still akin to looking through a paper tube... bright, but only give you that portion of the scene you can actually photograph.  But rangefinders allow you to be IN the scene; part of it...  and depending on the VF magnification, can allow you to see more of the scene than what the lens covers giving you the opportunity to see what's moving into or out of the frame.

 

 

That is the main appeal of the rangefinder, the greater sense of involvement with the subject. And greater awareness of the world outside of the frame is something that makes composition much easier.

 

 

What that led to, though, is that I can manually set my camera to do what I want it to do as fast or faster than automation can, and I'm terribly frustrated by having to use joysticks, thumbwheels, buttons and menus.  Dial controls in traditional locations are straight-forward, easy to remember and easy to use.   And I confess that I don't really care how many focus points the AF has;  when the shot is critical, I use manual focus as AF has let me down too many times... either because it couldn't find focus in low-light, or it didn't think like I do and focused on the wrong thing.

Automation isn't inherently bad, I just find it frequently enough less accurate than I am about what I shoot that I don't trust it for much more than static scenery shots.  If the shot is critical, I don't even trust AWB.    I like the immediacy of the the combined viewfinder/rangefinder setup, and knowing that if the shot is screwed up, it's screwed up because I screwed it up, not because the camera couldn't perform what I was asking of it.

 

 

 

I don't think of autofocus as automation, given that it's a complex abstraction. More complicated than manual focus is. It gives the photographer more work, not less. And if it screws up it's usually because the photographer isn't using it correctly. I work in IT and I am very comfortable with technically complicated systems. I've never had a problem with autofocus, though I prefer a rangefinder for the greater sense of involvement with the subject.

Autofocus it can do certain things than a rangefinder can not. Such as tracking a persons movement at a wide aperture like f1.4. Or staying focus on an athlete or motor vehicle though a 400mm 2.8 tele lens. For still subjects it also has some advantages, in terms of being able to focus towards the edge of the frame while countering for field curvature. However, much of the time it takes longer to work with than the rangefinder focus-recompose method. When you have to switch AF modes and toggle with a mini-joystick between 61 AF points to pick the single point you want in focus, this ends up often taking longer than manually focusing.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ramarren]

...

EVFs are improving, but are and cannot be anything but a tiny TV screen by which you are completely insulated from the world; much like watching CCTV security cameras.  DSLRS (and SLRS) with a pentaprism are still akin to looking through a paper tube... bright, but only give you that portion of the scene you can actually photograph.  But rangefinders allow you to be IN the scene; part of it...  and depending on the VF magnification, can allow you to see more of the scene than what the lens covers giving you the opportunity to see what's moving into or out of the frame.

...

 

Hi Roger! 

 

That's very poetic but it's not my perception at all. To me, they are all viewfinders ... just a means to see what the film or sensor will see. I don't feel any more disconnected from the scene with an EVF than I do with a rangefinder tunnel optical view.  A good SLR viewfinder, like for instance the one in a Nikon F or Leicaflex SL or Leica R8, has the same crisp "presence" as a well-tuned movie theater's screen. Sadly, even the best of the Olympus FourThirds SLR viewfinders was only just up to a "good" level ... the ultimate price of a small format focusing screen ... but believe me that when I mount a 90mm lens on my R8 and twist the focusing ring, the subject POPs out of the screen with vivid reality at the moment of proper focus, just like it does with the Olympus E-M1 EVF and the M-P optical view-/rangefinder. 

 

The 'seeing more of the scene than the lens covers' I answer by just keeping both eyes open and looking at the scene with my left eye while my right eye manages the viewfinder. It's a technique I learned shooting football, hockey, and basketball when in high school, and it works. 

 

Different perceptions, that's all. I use all of them and enjoy good examples of all. With luck, the SL's EVF will be even better than the Olympus E-M1, which is currently the best for my eyes. Had the Sony A7 and found its EVF a bit crude. Tried an Fuji X-T1 and though it was pretty good, but it didn't have quite the adaptive range of the E-M1. With the E-M1, I often forget that it's an EVF ... It's just a great viewfinder. 

 

Now that's where I want the SL to be. :-)