Mornnb Posted November 12, 2015 Share #181 Posted November 12, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Look, the point is that the M rangefinder is a tried and tested design. Adding bits and pieces to it immediately means that they will be compared with other cameras which will quickly move as the relevant technology progresses. We hear sufficient complaints about expense camera longevity already without built in problems which are when all said and done, peripheral to the fundamental functioning of the rangefinder camera. The Leica M is a tool. Peripheral functionality is not offensive if it is potentially useful in getting the shot you want. The less often I need to go to my Canon camera to get the job done, the better. I didn't buy the camera to be a purist, I bought it because it offers the best manual focus experience and the best image quality in a small package. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Hi Mornnb, Take a look here New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted November 12, 2015 Share #182 Posted November 12, 2015 Come on Jaap, that's terrible logic. The EVF2 was inexcusable, but that doesn't make the M a failure, in the same way the IR problems with the M* didn't make it a failure, or cracking/corroding sensor glass made the M9 a failure, or colour balance issues with the M(240) a failure. Criticising the M(240) EVF2 is entirely valid, and it was a cock-up by Leica. Not fatal, but a cock-up. You're coming across as a fanboy (again). Irony detector on the blink, John? Read the post above mine... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted November 12, 2015 Share #183 Posted November 12, 2015 ... Saying the EVF2 was the best available technology when the M(240) was released it just dishonest... Which EVF was at that time the best available technology, i.e. the best external EVF that was available to a small camera maker in Germany, and in what respect was it better than the EVF2 by Epson? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 12, 2015 Share #184 Posted November 12, 2015 Considering that the M240 design parameters were probably finalized early or halfway 2011... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 12, 2015 Share #185 Posted November 12, 2015 You're rewriting history John with respect. Tell me which EVF should have been used instead. The problem was not there. It was that the camera cannot feed any EVF at more than 30 fps. It was a Leica choice since the very beginning. You might wish to read or re-read what Sean Reid wrote about this in september 2012 or something. Reason why an upgrade of the EVF alone would have been totally useless even if it were possible, which i doubt. To get something more than an electronic Visoflex we need another M and the latter will inherit from the SL experience hopefully. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 12, 2015 Share #186 Posted November 12, 2015 I think the EVF as such was probably the best technology at the time. What I have a problem with is that Leica made a conscious decision not to make the camera's buffer/processor configuration upgradable to future technologies. It was a no brainer that EVF technology would evolve, after all Leica was working on it with the Q. Hardware solutions could have been put in place so that when new EVFs' become available, the camera's output would be able to handle larger data streams. It is unlikely that it was technologically impossible to have a processor buffer that exceeds the needs of the current EVF. Instead, Leica took a page from Apple's playbook. Force the customer to purchase a new model instead of foreseeing minimal but sometimes crucial upgrades. It is a way of milking the customer. I can only hope that long term it will hurt the company so that they abandon the practice. But the sad truth is, if there are enough devotees with cash ready to upgrade with every cycle, as is the case with Apple, the practice will continue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 12, 2015 Share #187 Posted November 12, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Which EVF was at that time the best available technology, i.e. the best external EVF that was available to a small camera maker in Germany, and in what respect was it better than the EVF2 by Epson? Not so. The fact that Olympus, who provided the EVF2, released an upgrade so quickly after the M(240) was released shows this is not true. Sone had been releasing far superior EVFs for some time. Leica did not make the same mistake with the EVF for the T, and the EVF in both the Q and SL is ahead of the pack. Leica dropped the ball, and this was discussed and debated at length at the time. Irony, Jaap? Not immediately apparent - I struggle to distinguish your idea of irony from defending the indefensible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 12, 2015 Share #188 Posted November 12, 2015 You're rewriting history John with respect. Tell me which EVF should have been used instead. The problem was not there. It was that the camera cannot feed any EVF at more than 30 fps. It was a Leica choice since the very beginning. You might wish to read or re-read what Sean Reid wrote about this in september 2012 or something. Reason why an upgrade of the EVF alone would have been totally useless even if it were possible, which i doubt. To get something more than an electronic Visoflex we need another M and the latter will inherit from the SL experience hopefully. Not quite - the reason a higher refresh rate wasn't possible is because Leica made the decision to stick with the Maestro processor. Alternatives? I had a Sony EVF at the time which was far superior. Leica was responsible for the entire design package, including the processor and the selection of EVF technology - this was their decision, and it was below par. I'm certainly not re-writing history, as this was discussed when the camera was released. It was one of a number of reasons I did not buy the camera. It doesn't matter that many were happy with the EVF2 - that's not the point. The point is that the optical rangefinder was state of the art, as was the sensor. The core camera was a definite upgrade from the M9, and that is fine. It's also fine that many M(240) owners are happy with the EVF, the buffer, the video implementation and everything else. What is not fine is that much of this was not up to the standard of the core functionality of the camera, or the price tag. This is undeniable. I need go no further than the fact that Leica charged a significant premium for writing "Leica" on the Olympus EVF2, and then the camera not being able to cope with the Olympus EVF4 (or whatever it was called) released in a matter of months after the M(240) release. I'm not the one re-writing history here. PS - consider this. Leica was already working on the SL when the M(240) was released. They didn't release the SL with EVF technology from 2012, or any of the years since. The SL has, by all accounts, the best EVF on the market today - no contradiction; better than anything Sony offers. They did not do the same with the M(240) on any account - it was half-assed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 12, 2015 Share #189 Posted November 12, 2015 The M is fundamentally an RF camera (hence the 'M' derivation)....the rest is a bonus....key for some, not as much for others. At the core, the M is state of the art digital RF. The SL is state of the art EVF. One person's half-assed is another's gem. And so it goes. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 12, 2015 Share #190 Posted November 12, 2015 The M is fundamentally an RF camera (hence the 'M' derivation)....the rest is a bonus....key for some, not as much for others. At the core, the M is state of the art digital RF. The SL is state of the art EVF. One person's half-assed is another's gem. And so it goes. Jeff I appreciate it is a rare occasion, but I agree entirely. I must have a temperature; maybe I'm not feeling well; I'd better go home and fondle my Leica gear ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 12, 2015 Share #191 Posted November 12, 2015 [...] I'm not the one re-writing history here. [...] Let's agree to differ then... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted November 12, 2015 Share #192 Posted November 12, 2015 Not so. I ask which EVF was the best at that time and you tell me "not so"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 12, 2015 Share #193 Posted November 12, 2015 Let's agree to differ then... I don't disagree with your post entirely, LCT - the point is that Leica produced a new M, with a new sensor and considerably greater functionality, which was all good; but they crippled it by including the old Maestro processor, which meant (as you say) they were stuck with an EVF which was actually obsolete at the time it was selected. You ask which other EVF they could have used - easy, the EVF4 (or whatever it was called), or a Sony licensed EVF, or they could have worked with Panasonic on a new one (as they apparently did with the Q and the SL). At a time when Leica was switching from the relatively traditional CCD based M9 to a CMOS based design which offered far more, they didn't go the whole way and improve the processor, buffer and EVF ... You will recall, no doubt, the discussion about the Maestro sensor being a bit old? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 12, 2015 Share #194 Posted November 12, 2015 I ask which EVF was the best at that time and you tell me "not so"? That's a bit like the old argument. [edit by Admin] I have no idea what new technology was available to Leica when the M(240) was released. I do know that, contrary to what you say, there were other EVFs available which were better than the EVF2. The more critical point is what technologies were available to Leica when the M(240) was released. The did manage to release state of the art EVFs in the Q and the SL, so why didn't they do that with the M(240). The mere fact that Olympus released a new version of what Leica had rebadged proves my point. Telling me I need to identify those alternatives is sophistry at best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 12, 2015 Share #195 Posted November 12, 2015 Sorry John but i am confused: - do you agree that the V-F3 had less resolution than the V-F2? - do you remember when the V-F4 was released? - which Sony or whatever sensor was better than the V-F2 if any in 2011? Just asking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 12, 2015 Share #196 Posted November 12, 2015 LCT, you're stretching my memory and it is no so important for me to go back through the threads and find the discussion (and it is beyond my meagre searching skills). I simply don't remember, sorry. You do, remember, though I'm sure that when the M(240) was released, many here went off and bought the identical Olympus branded EVF? And you also recall that an improved Olympus version was released within weeks, but it could not be fitted to the M(240) because the Maestro processor could not handle it? You may not recall, but I certainly do that the Leica EVF was greeted with less than enthusiasm. If that's not your recollection, then clearly we do differ. I'm certainly not re-writing anything, as I do recall reasonably vividly looking at the M(240) on its release and saying it looked like a great camera, but not for me ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted November 12, 2015 Share #197 Posted November 12, 2015 That's a bit like the old argument. I have no idea what new technology was available to Leica when the M(240) was released. I do know that, contrary to what you say, there were other EVFs available which were better than the EVF2. The more critical point is what technologies were available to Leica when the M(240) was released. The did manage to release state of the art EVFs in the Q and the SL, so why didn't they do that with the M(240). The mere fact that Olympus released a new version of what Leica had rebadged proves my point. Telling me I need to identify those alternatives is sophistry at best. I can't name any EVFs which were better at that time and you can't, either, or won't. What, exactly, do you imagine that I say beyond that? It's you who keeps on telling us that there must have been better ones. I don't think it unreasonable to ask which ones you had in mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 12, 2015 Share #198 Posted November 12, 2015 I can't name any EVFs which were better at that time and you can't, either, or won't. What, exactly, do you imagine that I say beyond that? It's you who keeps on telling us that there must have been better ones. I don't think it unreasonable to ask which ones you had in mind. Oh, no you don't. You don't get off the hook that easily. I have said since this camera was released that it was half-assed - a kludge; because what it added in the electronics was not up to the optical rangefinder core of the camera. Go back and look at the threads at that time. Asking me to name models and brands of EVF is not the point at all. As I've said more than once, Pop - I need do no more than point out that Leica's supplier released an upgraded EVF which the M(240) could not cope with, and point out that the Q and SL had leading edge EVFs. The M(240) didn't - it was average. I have no problem with you liking the EVF on the M(240). That's fine, but that does not mean that it was up to the same standard as the rest of the camera. Rather than continuing this discussion, why not refresh your memory from looking back at the discussions over the EVF at that time. I hope you're not saying that every M(240) owner was happy with the EVF? If it was state of the art, then those criticisms were completely unjustified ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 12, 2015 Share #199 Posted November 12, 2015 LCT, you're stretching my memory and it is no so important for me to go back through the threads and find the discussion (and it is beyond my meagre searching skills). I simply don't remember, sorry. You do, remember, though I'm sure that when the M(240) was released, many here went off and bought the identical Olympus branded EVF? And you also recall that an improved Olympus version was released within weeks, but it could not be fitted to the M(240) because the Maestro processor could not handle it? You may not recall, but I certainly do that the Leica EVF was greeted with less than enthusiasm. If that's not your recollection, then clearly we do differ. I'm certainly not re-writing anything, as I do recall reasonably vividly looking at the M(240) on its release and saying it looked like a great camera, but not for me ... John i was one of those who bought the Oly V-F2 indeed. As i said above the Oly V-F3 had a lesser resolution so there was no point in trying to use it on the M240 at all. What i don't recall is the date when the Oly V-F4 was launched, hence my question. But again we all knew perfectly since the beginning that the M240 was not able to feed any EVF at more than 30 pfs. So the EVF itself plays little to zero role in the performance on the M240 in LV/EVF mode IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 13, 2015 Share #200 Posted November 13, 2015 Isn't that saying the same thing, just attributing a different cause? "... since the beginning the M240 was not able to feed any EVF at more than 30 fps" As you say, it may be the processor which limited the EVF available to work. I'm not sure many people looked through the EVF and thought to themselves - gee the processor is slow. It's the whole thing taken together, and the fact that many owners wanted the faster Olympus EVF is surely indicative. Similarly, I can't recall anyone saying at the time that they bought the camera because of the Maestro processor ... What I'm saying, perhaps sloppily, is that most photographers don't carry round in their heads the technical details of sizes of buffers, performance of processors or refresh rates and frame speeds of electronic view finders, or the lines per square inch of LCDs. The pick up the camera and say - I hate the fact that the EVF blacks out when I'm using it, the image quality and lag with the EVF is terrible, the red "write light" on the back stays on a long time and the rate at which I can take pictures slows etc. That's why I react with some irritation when I remind some here that the EVF was never up to scratch even when released, and I get the responses - name the better alternatives. or it wasn't the EVF but the processor, or the EVF3 was slower. Cobblers to that. When I put my eye up to the EVF on the M(240) it wasn't good enough for what I was considering; when I put my eye up to the Q, it was fabulous. My comparisons? Any camera I could get my hands on - I'm not like a wine taster, taking notes of the technical details and keeping a record of what i try. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.