MRJohn Posted December 18, 2015 Share #1 Posted December 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) DPreview mentioned this week that the highly acclaimed SL internal EVF is likely a new Ultimicron panel by Epson which is now going into mass production. When looking at the the specs of the panel I wonder whether a 1.65 cm (0.66 inch) diameter would fit right inside an M (instead of the optical VF) or whether one would see a preserved optical and stack-on EVF in the next iteration of the M240? Anybody has an opinion whether it could fit within the M form factor? - Sadly, the lead of the SL in EVF resolution will not be for long... http://global.epson.com/products/htps/ultimicron/ http://global.epson.com/products/htps/products/index.html http://global.epson.com/products/htps/products/pdf/L3FJ63800C_e.pdf Well, I know the debate about OVF vs EVF is highly controversial in this forum, but for me, I'd happily go for an M240e with such specs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 Hi MRJohn, Take a look here Will next M feature internal Epson EVF?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Monochrome Posted December 18, 2015 Share #2 Posted December 18, 2015 If a Leica camera has an EVF, it won't be a M anymore. The M stands for "Mess-sucher", the german word for rangefinder. So no rangerfinder, no M... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRJohn Posted December 18, 2015 Author Share #3 Posted December 18, 2015 If a Leica camera has an EVF, it won't be a M anymore. The M stands for "Mess-sucher", the german word for rangefinder. So no rangerfinder, no M... Sorry, this is not answering the question. Call it an "E" or continue to call it an "M" as in "Mirrorless" I don't care. The question is will this EVF panel fit inside the M form and design factor and expand the M-line of camera bodies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monochrome Posted December 18, 2015 Share #4 Posted December 18, 2015 Well, something like it fits inside the Q, so surely a camera can be made with the EVF you mention in it. Will Leica make a mirrorless with interchangeble lenses? Perhaps, but i don't see them using the M line lenses for that. M lenses are equiped with a rangefinder cam which makes them a lot more expensive. In a camera without a rangefinder you don't need these so why pay for them? it would be more likely to use the T lenses for such a camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 18, 2015 Share #5 Posted December 18, 2015 Well, something like it fits inside the Q, so surely a camera can be made with the EVF you mention in it. Will Leica make a mirrorless with interchangeble lenses? Perhaps, but i don't see them using the M line lenses for that. M lenses are equiped with a rangefinder cam which makes them a lot more expensive. In a camera without a rangefinder you don't need these so why pay for them? it would be more likely to use the T lenses for such a camera. Leica have been making mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras for decades, as you obviously know. But if you mean cameras with EVFs incorporated into the body, well yes, they make those too. Which you also know! Leica have confirmed that the OVF stays in the M. But a much higher spec detachable EVF is quite likely to be part of the new M layout, unless Leica makes the mistake of deciding that the SL has the EVF M-lens-compatible sector covered. A combination-type internal VF incorporating more EVF elements in or alongside the OVF is also possible. I personally don't expect it, but I could very easily be wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted December 18, 2015 Share #6 Posted December 18, 2015 No. It will not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 18, 2015 Share #7 Posted December 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) It would be rather unwise, I think, to have an internal EVF in the M Technology is evolving rapidly and the camera would be obsolete in a few years. That is not very M... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 18, 2015 Share #8 Posted December 18, 2015 It would be pretty stupid to have an internal EVF in the M Technology is evolving rapidly and he camera would be obsolete in a few years. That is not very M... Whilst I agree, do you feel Leica has taken a different view regarding the life-cycle of the SL? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRJohn Posted December 18, 2015 Author Share #9 Posted December 18, 2015 It would be pretty stupid to have an internal EVF in the M Technology is evolving rapidly and he camera would be obsolete in a few years. That is not very M... I don't get that, it could be stupid to miss the boat. The life cycle (or rather refresh cycle) of the current Ms is about 3 years. If you think its obsolete after that or not is your decision. For some it seems the optical viewfinder is the key element which defines the M. For me it is the form of the body and placement of display, buttons and knobs, plus, where I look through; in a way the shell and the lenses which form an iconic design which can not be improved. In between is technology nowadays and that should serve a purpose, and push the boundaries in a meaningful way if it is a Leica. I dislike the hump of the SL, and that of the external EVF of an M. Likewise I do not need the grip of an SL. I like it small and sleek (but not too small). Also I do not care whether the view through the optical viewfinder is through glass or as real as it gets but an electronic image. The function matters and here it seems that the optical VF has lost the battle in major domains to the EVF: which sees in the dark, it shows depth of field, no focus shift, no need for costly and timely alignment, corrects eyesight, can show black and white or color, etc. Yes, it does not show what is outside of framelines, so composition is impaired somewhat. If that defines your M preference, then they will for sure forever make those stripped down Ms with optical VFs you can choose from. I like those, too. But I also think the best VF currently is that of the SL. And if they ever stick it into (not onto) an Msomething, there will be an outcry in this forum by the traditionalists, but folks like me will have a humble smile on their face. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 18, 2015 Share #10 Posted December 18, 2015 Of course the M OVF can be modernized, should be imo, but it is a different concept than the SL. The SL is a EVIL and I do think that due to its concept it will be of necessity more susceptible to obsolescence. Another reason that there is room for both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted December 18, 2015 Share #11 Posted December 18, 2015 I think the M won't get a build in EVF, simply because right now there are two camera's the SL with EVF and all modern whistles and bells and the M which is gonna get more pure again I guess if we take a look at the M262. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 18, 2015 Share #12 Posted December 18, 2015 If Leica could make the M with a switchable EVF, rather like Fuji can do, then why not have the best of both worlds, without the need to carry/buy a clip on finder which also means that you can't then use flash! I'm guessing though that they will stick with the optional clip on EVF for the next M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 19, 2015 Share #13 Posted December 19, 2015 I don't get that, it could be stupid to miss the boat. The life cycle (or rather refresh cycle) of the current Ms is about 3 years. If you think its obsolete after that or not is your decision. For some it seems the optical viewfinder is the key element which defines the M. For me it is the form of the body and placement of display, buttons and knobs, plus, where I look through; in a way the shell and the lenses which form an iconic design which can not be improved. In between is technology nowadays and that should serve a purpose, and push the boundaries in a meaningful way if it is a Leica. I dislike the hump of the SL, and that of the external EVF of an M. Likewise I do not need the grip of an SL. I like it small and sleek (but not too small). Also I do not care whether the view through the optical viewfinder is through glass or as real as it gets but an electronic image. The function matters and here it seems that the optical VF has lost the battle in major domains to the EVF: which sees in the dark, it shows depth of field, no focus shift, no need for costly and timely alignment, corrects eyesight, can show black and white or color, etc. Yes, it does not show what is outside of framelines, so composition is impaired somewhat. If that defines your M preference, then they will for sure forever make those stripped down Ms with optical VFs you can choose from. I like those, too. But I also think the best VF currently is that of the SL. And if they ever stick it into (not onto) an Msomething, there will be an outcry in this forum by the traditionalists, but folks like me will have a humble smile on their face. M = Messsucher (Rangefinder) and it has been the defining property of each and every M camera for over 60 years. All the rest you mention has been duplicated in various cameras over time, even in those that are on the market right now. Should Leica give up the USP and niche of their signature camera? I don't think they would be the same company. And no, an EVF, for all that it is a technological marvel, cannot give the same viewfinder experience as the direct telescope of the M does. With an EVF you will always be looking at the scene at one remove. You can probably see a play better on HD television, ideal angles, close-ups, etc. But I, and not just me, prefer a theatre. The rangefinding mechanism, yes, that could probably be digitized, possibly improved, with an electronic RF patch, framelines etc. But it cannot be that a camera without the direct optical view would be my M camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted December 19, 2015 Share #14 Posted December 19, 2015 I played with an SL last weekend, and I have to admit that it is a wonderful camera. The EVF is great, but I can tell you that I can focus faster and as precisely with the M rangefinder of my MM1 as I can with the EVF in the SL. Autofocus of course is incredibly fast, but as for accuracy, the most problematic situations such as focusing a tight portrait of someone wearing glasses etc. are still problematic for the autofocus lenses and as difficult with the EVF as with the rangefinder imho. The difference between focusing on someones eyeball vs. their eyebrows remains difficult wide open. I hope that the EVF for the M will remain an attachment for specialty shooting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo63 Posted December 19, 2015 Share #15 Posted December 19, 2015 I hope that the optical rangefinder remains for the next M with a clip-on remaining an option for those that want/need it (preferably a high resolution EVF like the one in the SL, that thing is beautiful) A PC socket (or locking LEMO connector with pigtails for PC 3.5mm and hotshoe) would be a great addition, so we can use flash alongside the EVF though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 19, 2015 Share #16 Posted December 19, 2015 It would be rather unwise, I think, to have an internal EVF in the M Technology is evolving rapidly and the camera would be obsolete in a few years. That is not very M... While I would also prefer they keep it external, one could argue that the current EVF is similarly 'obsolete' (to use your term), since it's not upgradeable. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 19, 2015 Share #17 Posted December 19, 2015 That is true, but without EVF the current OVF the M 240 may slightly improved, but the older cameras can hardly be said to be obsolete. There is a fluid evolution in the M digital series. Admitted, the next M might show some major changes to the rangefinder, who knows, but we can hope the quality of the view through the system will remain the same. With a (built in) EVF we can be sure that it will not just improve in features, but that the very experience will be on a higher level by leaps and jumps with each generation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted December 19, 2015 Share #18 Posted December 19, 2015 One of the things that makes the EVF on the SL work that well is the wide opening (and it's optics) borrowed from the Leica S. The Leica Q has a much smaller opening and is too small for wearer of eyeglasses to see the edges. So that is one thing an EVF for the M has to deal with, internal or external: How to make the view into the EVF bright and open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 19, 2015 Share #19 Posted December 19, 2015 One of the things that makes the EVF on the SL work that well is the wide opening (and it's optics) borrowed from the Leica S. The Leica Q has a much smaller opening and is too small for wearer of eyeglasses to see the edges. So that is one thing an EVF for the M has to deal with, internal or external: How to make the view into the EVF bright and open. Sums it up quite well. To make things easier to see they require larger apertures and/or to be physically bigger. In my speciality (underwater photography) we have suffered with this problem and its solutions for a very long time indeed. My first underwate camera which had a fair solution was the Nikon F fitted with a (very expensive) Actionfinder (never that bright unfortunately). For a long time this remained to only way to project a full image back into the viewer's eye when it was behind a diving mask. Anther solution required the viewer to view a reduce magnification image - and I found this as problematic sonly seeing part of the viewfinder and having to wiggle my head to glimpse into the corners of it. Today we have an optical solution which projects an enlarged image back into the eye. These are subject to the same criteria - size of aperture is important for a good view and the best of these 'Sportsfinders' are both large due to the need for a large aperture through the housing into which they fit and the larger glass lenses required in their optical system, and in consequence very expensive. The problem is size. My underwater kit weighs around 10Kg above water but is almost neutrally buoyant underwater so size is not a prime requirement. The M RF is however very constrained in terms of its size and will present an optical designer with a real problem if the design brief is to provide a bright open EVF (or conventional view come to that) within the existent size of the existing cameras. Which is why I am always adamant that the existing RF cameras should remain as they are - RF designs with their current physical attributes and OVFs. Any significant departure from this design with almost certainly have undesirable implications in terms of size and/or form (ad people are already moaning about the larger size compared to film versions). The M RF is what it is, a camera dealing with a great number of design legacies (such as mechanical lenses with extremely limited data transfer potential, a heavily constrained viewfinder, and so on.). I can quite see why Leica wants to break away from these constraints with its latest product designs. What I don't understand is why so many people seem to want to get them to bugger up the M RF in order to tack on bits and bobs which are fundamentally irrelevant to its operation. If you don't like/can't use the existing RF viewfinder its probably time to move on I'm afraid - as eventually it will be for me as my eyes eventually age. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffry Abt Posted December 19, 2015 Share #20 Posted December 19, 2015 I don't want a internal electronic viewfinder on the M. An updated clip-on EVF would be great! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.