jaapv Posted December 20, 2015 Share #41 Posted December 20, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) No objection - just pointing out that it is by no means certain -but of course possible- that the upcoming M will use Epson EVF technology and that the DPReview thing is pure speculation. Edit - re-reading see the confusion I caused. By "current EVFs" I did not mean to include the EVF-2. Sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 20, 2015 Posted December 20, 2015 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Will next M feature internal Epson EVF?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Mornnb Posted December 20, 2015 Share #42 Posted December 20, 2015 It should in theory be possible to make an upgrade for the M240 EVF provided the resolution and frame rate stays the same. It is still possible to improve on contrast and colour reproduction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted December 20, 2015 Share #43 Posted December 20, 2015 I'd say the entire point of the SL is the cater to those who have been asking for lots of bells and whistles on the M. Is that really not enough? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 20, 2015 Share #44 Posted December 20, 2015 I'd say the entire point of the SL is the cater to those who have been asking for lots of bells and whistles on the M. Is that really not enough? Enough to keep the current M240's EVF you mean? There is the M262 for those who don't need any Visoflex or prefer the optical one. Others are entitled to get an EVF the same level as the competition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted December 20, 2015 Share #45 Posted December 20, 2015 I've mentioned this before, but it warrants repeating in this context: One of the key aspects of the M camera (or any rangefinder) has been the concentration on image content … what the image is about, over what the image looks like. No wide angle effect, no increased or decreased field-of-view, no depth-of-field effect. Simply a window on the world with one compositional aid (frame lines), one focus aid (the rangefinder patch), and no other visual distractions from the content of the photograph. This distinguishes it from all other through-the-lens alternatives of which there are many, including: SLRs, DSLRs with OVF, or SLTs and mirror-less with EVF. The shooting experience of a Leica M would be very different if it became an EVF camera as we now know them. Whether advancing technology could improve on the simplified, undistracted shooting experience of the M rangefinder should be the question IMO … not whether technology can change that experience (we all know it can). Personally, I think there are enough emerging technological opportunities for the M to capitalize on without messing with the core reason it exists in the first place. - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 20, 2015 Share #46 Posted December 20, 2015 To each their own. As i suggested above there is the M262 for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted December 20, 2015 Share #47 Posted December 20, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) (....) One of the key aspects of the M camera (or any rangefinder) has been the concentration on image content … what the image is about, over what the image looks like. (...) Obviously, I don't object if that's the way you want experience it. However, I don't agree. To me, the key aspects of every camera - besides producing adequate pictures - lies in the camera supporting the photographer in the task of taking pictures. It happens that for the way I prefer shooting and for my eyesight the RF is optimal in a certain set of circumstances. In others, I prefer an EVF or, perhaps, a mobile phone as a remote control. If the same camera is suited to a certain degree for more situations, I save money and the bother of carrying several systems on the same outing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted December 20, 2015 Share #48 Posted December 20, 2015 Enough to keep the current M240's EVF you mean? There is the M262 for those who don't need any Visoflex or prefer the optical one. Others are entitled to get an EVF the same level as the competition. I agree 100% , I'll never pay again for an optical RF , I want the best EVF in the next M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted December 20, 2015 Share #49 Posted December 20, 2015 I've mentioned this before, but it warrants repeating in this context: One of the key aspects of the M camera (or any rangefinder) has been the concentration on image content … what the image is about, over what the image looks like. No wide angle effect, no increased or decreased field-of-view, no depth-of-field effect. Simply a window on the world with one compositional aid (frame lines), one focus aid (the rangefinder patch), and no other visual distractions from the content of the photograph. This distinguishes it from all other through-the-lens alternatives of which there are many, including: SLRs, DSLRs with OVF, or SLTs and mirror-less with EVF. The shooting experience of a Leica M would be very different if it became an EVF camera as we now know them. Whether advancing technology could improve on the simplified, undistracted shooting experience of the M rangefinder should be the question IMO … not whether technology can change that experience (we all know it can). Personally, I think there are enough emerging technological opportunities for the M to capitalize on without messing with the core reason it exists in the first place. - Marc The shooting experience is the same with an iPhone, an Hasselblad, a M the core reason is to take pictures and nothing else Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 20, 2015 Share #50 Posted December 20, 2015 I agree 100% , I'll never pay again for an optical RF , I want the best EVF in the next M The shooting experience is the same with an iPhone, an Hasselblad, a M the core reason is to take pictures and nothing else I can't quite reconcile these two statements Erick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 20, 2015 Share #51 Posted December 20, 2015 The shooting experience is the same with an iPhone, an Hasselblad, a M the core reason is to take pictures and nothing else You are kidding right? The experience is part of the image creating process. The better the experience, the more likely you will succeed in obtaining the image that you want. Shooting landscapes in Yosemite on a large format film camera (or Hasselblad) has little in common in terms of shooting experience when shooting from the same viewpoint with an iPhone other than that both create a (very different) image. Perhaps one of the problems we have in threads like this is that to some a camera must fulfil numerous functions so must encompass numerous technicalities in order to do so. Others of us (including myself) see specific cameras as being highly efficient within the context for which they were designed. My experience over 35 years+ of photography. is that compromises are rarely effective so I'd rather not use them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 20, 2015 Share #52 Posted December 20, 2015 I agree 100% , I'll never pay again for an optical RF , I want the best EVF in the next M Like you got the best external EVF available at the time for the M240... And now there is the SL, takes M lenses without trouble, has a decent EVF, good image quality and no OVF you have to pay for. No more M cameras in the future for you, I fear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted December 20, 2015 Share #53 Posted December 20, 2015 The shooting experience is the same with an iPhone, an Hasselblad, a M I'm sorry, but I'll have to call you out on this. You don't believe this yourself do you? That's the same as saying the driving experience is the same with any car, it's just about getting from point A to B. The M is all about the shooting experience otherwise all of us would save ourselves a lot of money and get cheaper or bigger cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted December 20, 2015 Share #54 Posted December 20, 2015 I'm sorry, but I'll have to call you out on this. You don't believe this yourself do you? That's the same as saying the driving experience is the same with any car, it's just about getting from point A to B. The M is all about the shooting experience otherwise all of us would save ourselves a lot of money and get cheaper or bigger cameras. The driving experience depends on how many megapixels the car has. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRJohn Posted December 20, 2015 Author Share #55 Posted December 20, 2015 I've mentioned this before, but it warrants repeating in this context: One of the key aspects of the M camera (or any rangefinder) has been the concentration on image content … what the image is about, over what the image looks like. No wide angle effect, no increased or decreased field-of-view, no depth-of-field effect. Simply a window on the world with one compositional aid (frame lines), one focus aid (the rangefinder patch), and no other visual distractions from the content of the photograph. This distinguishes it from all other through-the-lens alternatives of which there are many, including: SLRs, DSLRs with OVF, or SLTs and mirror-less with EVF. The shooting experience of a Leica M would be very different if it became an EVF camera as we now know them. Whether advancing technology could improve on the simplified, undistracted shooting experience of the M rangefinder should be the question IMO … not whether technology can change that experience (we all know it can). Personally, I think there are enough emerging technological opportunities for the M to capitalize on without messing with the core reason it exists in the first place. - Marc I think you raise a good point. However, I think there is also a fundamental flaw. Anticipation of what the image is about is in my opinion and experience mostly done with the eye looking at a scene when not looking through the camera (you see it and then you try to shoot it), unless you walk around constantly looking through the VF (yes, sometimes we also try to anticipate things while looking through the VF). Framelines are a compositional help but if you know your lenses you roughly know what the lens will give you anyway, whether you can shoot what you are seeing with the mounted lens. And unless you have the right lens on already, then that scene will be lost or you can't realize it in street photography as you won't have time to change the lens. The OVF as a focusing aid more often than not means that we focus on partially what we want the image to look like, meaning also that we need to recompose to position the shot after focusing on the main element. Having seen the scene before with the eye means we rely less on framelines, the EVF would be just fine. So those advantages of the OVF you mention (which is everything that HCB needed for his style of photography), they are real, but I would personally deprioritize them compared to the benefits of a proper EVF. - If we take a step back in time, then Leica had a history of continuous innovation on this topic. Adding a view-frame on top of the camera first, adding an external focusing aid, adding a coupled rangefinder, combining those, and eventually internalizing it into the body to arrive at the RF we know today. There was nothing to improve (except precision tolerances of optics and mechanics) for several decades until sufficiently minaturized electronics became available. Would Ernst Leitz II today say again: "My decision is to take the risk" when it comes to replacing the OVF with an EVF in the M? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 20, 2015 Share #56 Posted December 20, 2015 [...] Would Ernst Leitz II today say again: "My decision is to take the risk" when it comes to replacing the OVF with an EVF in the M? Replacing? I doubt it strongly if he'd read the LUF but Leica have never intended to replace the M by the R as far as i recall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted December 20, 2015 Share #57 Posted December 20, 2015 Enough to keep the current M240's EVF you mean? There is the M262 for those who don't need any Visoflex or prefer the optical one. Others are entitled to get an EVF the same level as the competition. The thread title specifically reads "internal" - a built in EVF. I'm opposed to that on the M. Again, my perception is that the SL is, in part, an appeasement to the "gadget people" who keep wanting to saddle the M with built in EVFs, auto focus, smoothie blenders, espresso makers, etc. Leica gave those people practically everything they've been asking for: A big, fast EVF. A high burst rate. Native auto focus. Compatibility with a wide range of Leica glass (including AF support for R and S glass.) Advanced video capabilities. I don't really mind a clip-on EVF. I have the Olympus branded EVF for my M240, though I very rarely use it. The flaw in a clip-on EVF is the plug is vulnerable to water, dust, etc, if you misplace the hotshoe cover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 20, 2015 Share #58 Posted December 20, 2015 So those advantages of the OVF you mention ....., they are real, but I would personally deprioritize them compared to the benefits of a proper EVF. It really does depend on how and what you shoot. If an EVF suits your shooting styles then go for an SL which offers a potentially far better solution than anything which can be fitted into or bolted onto an M. Replacing? I doubt it strongly if he'd read the LUF but Leica have never intended to replace the M by the R as far as i recall. And I thought that before the M4-2 they were going to drop the M line (and retain the R line) altogether. By all accounts and history this would have been a HUGE mistake. And whilst I am basing my opinion on supposition, I would guess that Leica do read the LUF and are possibly even influenced by what posters say - after all many posters here clearly state that they own significant amounts of Leica gear so it would be odd not to consider their opinions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 20, 2015 Share #59 Posted December 20, 2015 Like you got the best external EVF available at the time for the M240... Repeating this doesn't make it true, Jaap ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 20, 2015 Share #60 Posted December 20, 2015 I still have to hear which external EVF was better in 2011-2012. It is all moot now anyway, years later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.