jmahto Posted November 13, 2015 Share #201 Posted November 13, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Going by the internet chatter it seems Oly V-F4 was available in summer 2013. Way after M240 was announced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Hi jmahto, Take a look here New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted November 13, 2015 Share #202 Posted November 13, 2015 A quick Google - posted on DPReview on 6 February 2012: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7122225983/an-introduction-to-oled Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted November 13, 2015 Share #203 Posted November 13, 2015 Yes, it was an evolving technology in 2012. Not sure where we are going with this discussion though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 13, 2015 Share #204 Posted November 13, 2015 Just to say that the (then relative) slowness of the V-F2 was a compromise that we did accept in 2012. The 30 fps limitation would have been significant if the M240 had been a modern mirrorless camera but it is a rangefinder with an excellent optical RF so to replace the old Visoflex, the V-F2 and its Leica clone were good enough at the launch of the M240. Now three years later those EVFs are obsolete for sure but given the 30 fps limitation, the only way to improve them is to purchase the next M or to choose the SL instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted November 13, 2015 Share #205 Posted November 13, 2015 We heard all the arguments why M240 could not support faster refresh rate EVF but the fact remains that cheap and cheerful Olympus micro 4/3 camera(s), don't recall the model but it was similar vintage to M240, which started with EVF2 could accept faster EVF4 once it became available. At least one good thing came out of it, eBay was awash with cheap Olympus EVF2 so perhaps Leica strategy bacfired as nobody bought Leica branded EVF4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 13, 2015 Share #206 Posted November 13, 2015 Just to say that the (then relative) slowness of the V-F2 was a compromise that we did accept in 2012. The 30 fps limitation would have been significant if the M240 had been a modern mirrorless camera but it is a rangefinder with an excellent optical RF so to replace the old Visoflex, the V-F2 and its Leica clone were good enough at the launch of the M240. Now three years later those EVFs are obsolete for sure but given the 30 fps limitation, the only way to improve them is to purchase the next M or to choose the SL instead. I agree with everything, but the "good enough" comment. For the cost of a Leica, "good enough" wasn't enough for me. As it turned out, I then wasted a lot of time and money trying Sonys and Nikons, and they didn't work for me either. With respect (and I mean this), this is actually an important discussion. The M(240) was the latest manifestation of what started with the M3 - the viewfinder had been improved, the camera was starting out in a new direction with CMOS technology, and I'm sure you all recall the growing unease over the mismatch between electronic obsolescence and Leica's brass bodies and wonderful mechanical perfection; and the price ... This was before the coffee stain LCD issues on the M8 and the corrosion on the M9 sensor, but we were discussing the "camera for life" expectations created by Leica in their advertising even then. What is undeniable is that the traditional, optical-mechanical aspects of the M were fabulous, but not matched by the rest of what the camera had to offer. The SL seems to have answered a lot of that by genuinely pushing the technology boat out. Unlike the M(240), Leica seems to have made a huge effort to provide the best of everything (including the meagre 24MP sensor - I know many disagree with this). So, what does this mean for the next M? Will Leica simply carry over the SL technology? and if so, is that really enough? It will look like a poor cousin, if that is the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 13, 2015 Share #207 Posted November 13, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just to say that the (then relative) slowness of the V-F2 was a compromise that we did accept in 2012. The 30 fps limitation would have been significant if the M240 had been a modern mirrorless camera but it is a rangefinder with an excellent optical RF so to replace the old Visoflex, the V-F2 and its Leica clone were good enough at the launch of the M240. Now three years later those EVFs are obsolete for sure but given the 30 fps limitation, the only way to improve them is to purchase the next M or to choose the SL instead. Agree, and don't forget, that whichever way you define and date it, the SL is three years ahead of the M240, which means at least three generations in the EVF world. Plus, these are Leica specified EVFs, whilst for the 240 Leica had to make do with the best available on the open market. I don't think Sony has sold any of their EVFs to anybody, unlike Epson, which is a general supplier. I'm sure the new M will come as a pleasant surprise. The EVF? It will still be an auxiliary system, so the family relationship to real EVF cameras does not really matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 13, 2015 Share #208 Posted November 13, 2015 Agree, and don't forget, that whichever way you define and date it, the SL is three years ahead of the M240, which means at least three generations in the EVF world. Plus, these are Leica specified EVFs, whilst for the 240 Leica had to make do with the best available on the open market. I don't think Sony has sold any of their EVFs to anybody, unlike Epson, which is a general supplier. I'm sure the new M will come as a pleasant surprise. The EVF? It will still be an auxiliary system, so the family relationship to real EVF cameras does not really matter. Here we go again! Who said at any stage that the M(240) should have had the EVF from the SL? What on earth has that got to do with anything? Why do you say Leica had to make do with what was available, and on what basis do you say what they offered was the best? Leica was buying from Olympus, and Olympus released a better version less than 6 months after the 2012 Photokina. Again, Pop asks what better EVFs were available, and I point to a discussion in 2012 (after 5 minute Googling) OLED EVFs. Now you say they weren't for sale by Sony. For goodness sake, stop finding excuses! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 13, 2015 Share #209 Posted November 13, 2015 You said: Will Leica simply carry over the SL technology? and if so, is that really enough? It will look like a poor cousin, if that is the case. You may note that I was referring to the new M, not the 240. I certainly did not say the 240 should have had the SL EVF, whatever gave you that strange notion?Leica was not buying from Olympus, they were both buying from the sole supplier of quality EVFs on the market: Epson. Olympus was lucky that their hardware could handle the EVF 4, Leice was unlucky that theirs could not. I am not expert enough to tell whether the higher demand by a full-frame sensor over 4/3rds made the difference, or simply the processor, but that was just the way it was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 13, 2015 Share #210 Posted November 13, 2015 No doubt that the next M will have a faster EVF but what surprises me in threads like this (nothing personal) is the negativity of some comments, as if their authors did not recall how we felt three years ago. The addition of an EVF was a fantastic novelty for some of us, especially R users who could use their dear lenses on the new body, or M users with imperfect sight who could nail focus much more easily with the EVF, let alone the (very few) paranoids who cannot check focus without a brick wall and a ruler . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 13, 2015 Share #211 Posted November 13, 2015 You: What? I'm sorry if my post was ambiguous, Jaap. My comment was, will the SL technology be carried over to the next M, implying that the EVF technology for the SL is probably actually 2014? or early 2015 at best. The next M presumably will be released at Photokina 2016 (who knows) - if the tech in the next M is just carried over from the SL, they may leave themselves open to the criticism that the M is ho-hum, or a second rate cousin. How does pointing out that the SL is three generations ahead of the M(240) even remotely relevant? I certainly have never said the M(240) should have had the SL technology - that is completely untrue, Jaap. Please re-read my post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted November 13, 2015 Share #212 Posted November 13, 2015 " I'm sure the new M will come as a pleasant surprise. " Probably not. With the M 240 Leica lost its way. The only good surprise would be a new Mxxx no bigger than an M9, without video, silent shutter, no vibrations, EVF as good as the SL's and an upgraded sensor. More or different would be too much (except ibis perhaps) and less not enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 13, 2015 Share #213 Posted November 13, 2015 With the M 240 Leica lost its way. The only good surprise would be a new Mxxx no bigger than an M9, without video, silent shutter, no vibrations, EVF as good as the SL's and an upgraded sensor. More or different would be too much (except ibis perhaps) and less not enough. Interesting....compared to its predecessor M9, using your desired criteria, the M240 is almost identical in size, quieter shutter, no vibrations (where would those even come from without mirror?), a much better EVF (versus none) and an upgraded sensor and processor....and the video can be totally disabled with a simple setting. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 13, 2015 Share #214 Posted November 13, 2015 Who said at any stage that the M(240) should have had the EVF from the SL This introduced that notion.. I too would be surprised if the hypothetical Mxxx EVF would not at least be equal to the SL, but I am also convinced that it will not be the main upgrade. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soden Posted November 13, 2015 Share #215 Posted November 13, 2015 Just working off some excess energy by having a snarl.. Not really, just noticing the quantum leap of the SL over the M in certain technologies, and noticing the patents being filed by Leica. Hoping these events will bring real innovation to the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted November 13, 2015 Share #216 Posted November 13, 2015 I can't decide which side of this conflict I'm on. One side says Leica could have made a better M because better components became available in the future, the other side says no they couldn't. How to decide? I think I'll go with the side which didn't fulfill Godwin's law. Does anyone know if the EVF really uses the Maestro image processor or is there another one working on fewer pixels? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted November 13, 2015 Share #217 Posted November 13, 2015 ...My comparisons? Any camera I could get my hands on .... yet you failed to remember which one or which ones that could have been. Now you point to Sony's NEX 5N and NEX 7, both of which I happen to own and none of which has an EVF which is markedly superior to the EVF2 under discussion. I'm out here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 13, 2015 Share #218 Posted November 13, 2015 yet you failed to remember which one or which ones that could have been. Now you point to Sony's NEX 5N and NEX 7, both of which I happen to own and none of which has an EVF which is markedly superior to the EVF2 under discussion. I'm out here. I didn't mention the NEX-5n or NEX-7 in this context at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted November 13, 2015 Share #219 Posted November 13, 2015 What is undeniable is that the traditional, optical-mechanical aspects of the M were fabulous, but not matched by the rest of what the camera had to offer. This is my point entirely. Bolt on extras will never be as good as the core features unless the M type camera evolves into something other than an RF camera, at which point it will cease to be an M as far as I'm concerned. i would like to see Leica concentrating on the core features - there are and will be plenty of alternatives which will have better versions of the bolt on extras. Trying to add bits and pieces is to me eventual folly - the restrictions placed upon the system due to it being RF mean that it is fundamentally hamstrung. At its core the M type camera is an RF camera and the system is RF based (I seem to repeat this ad naseum). I suppose that I'm a purist, but I would like it kept that way. If I ever want an EVF camera (although I really don't want to view the world through yet another electronic interface personally) then I'll buy one designed specifically for this purpose like the SL. I've tried using the original Visoflex unit, used R lenses on other cameras - these are compromises and in the same way EVFs and video and the like will always be compromises on a purpose built RF camera. To me a streamlined RF camera which might even be a mechanical with a sensor would be a really innovative statement by Leica - a resolve to maintain a system that dates back to its origins as a camera manufacturer and says that RF is still as good a system as ever. (I use Leica RF cameras for 95% of my land based photography these days). Within their constraints they are fabulous. But I don't want/need/miss EVF, video, other add ons. As far as I am concerned they are utterly superfluous. I see no reason why Leica could not offer a streamlined camera and a bloater too . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted November 13, 2015 Share #220 Posted November 13, 2015 I didn't mention the NEX-5n or NEX-7 in this context at all. You link to an article about OLED where the only EVFs mentioned are those of the NEX 5N and 7, yet you have not introduced them in the discussion? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.