jaapv Posted December 20, 2015 Share #61 Posted December 20, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Gaffer Tape... 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!
FlashGordonPhotography Posted December 20, 2015 Share #62 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. Besides the Olympus VF-4 and the clip on one for the Sony RX-1? Both available when the M was released. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted December 20, 2015 Share #63 Posted December 20, 2015 Besides the Olympus VF-4 and the clip on one for the Sony RX-1? Both available when the M was released. Gordon The question is not which was the best EVF available, the question is which available EVF would operate under the frame rate and resolution limitations of the camera's CPU. The 2.36MP VF-4 needs significantly more processing power to be supported. Remember, the EVF is an accessary and supporting a great EVF was not Leica's primary design goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 20, 2015 Share #64 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. Yet you still repeat it as fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 20, 2015 Share #65 Posted December 20, 2015 Besides the Olympus VF-4 and the clip on one for the Sony RX-1? Both available when the M was released. Gordon The VF4 I think not. Half a year later... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 20, 2015 Share #66 Posted December 20, 2015 The VF4 I think not. Half a year later... A heartbeat, and pretty much fully developed by Olympus when the M was released, and certainly before many people got their cameras - so, Leica released a new camera with an end of line EVF with no ability to upgrade to the EVF about to be released because their processor couldn't cope. Do we need to do this again? The fact remains that Olympus had the next version all but ready, Sony had more than one EVF better than the EVF-2 (I seem to recall I had one of them) and you persist in repeating the mantra that the EVF-2 was the best tech at the time like some Leica fanboy. There were far better EVFs available; the problem was the Maestro processor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 20, 2015 Share #67 Posted December 20, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) so, Leica released a new camera with an end of line EVF with no ability to upgrade to the EVF about to be released because their processor couldn't cope. And bolt ons will always lag and become outdated. Its an inevitability unless agreed industry standard interfaces exist. So any M with bolt on EVF will have a limited life before needing to be replaced with a newer model. This of course will make users complain about longevity of models and so on. The RF on the other hand works within its limitations and needs no updates....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted December 20, 2015 Share #68 Posted December 20, 2015 The VF4 I think not. Half a year later... And such is the problem with digital technology. If you want to enjoy Leica cameras, you'd better not keep lusting after every new development very six months. I believe Jaap is correct in that the VF-4 was not out when the M240 was released, and even if it was, it definitely wasn't available to Leica during development and beta-testing. I believe that the Q and the SL proved yet again that Leica is trying to incorporate the best available technology in their new cameras, which is the best they can do to compete with other electronics giants. What they cannot afford is getting sucked into the short upgrade cycles and interlinked pricing strategies of other major players. The bottom line is that you judge each camera at release and figure out if you can be happy with it. Then put on your blinders and try not to strive for the newest technology until about three years later, and know that by the time the new Leica starts shipping, Sony will already have increased the ISO ability of their new sensor by a stop or two. But I really believe that there is a danger that some of us might trip or get mugged in a dark alley while we try to find the menu to change our ISO from 25,000 to 50,000 while using that new camera. I'm excited to clip on an excellent new viewfinder onto whatever my new M will be for portraits with the 75lux and other special occasions, and keep it in the bag or at home when that's not what I'm going to be shooting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 20, 2015 Share #69 Posted December 20, 2015 Paul & Bernd, this is the problem in a nutshell. We pay over the odds for a digital camera that has a usability life far in excess of its technological obsolescence. The problem with the M(240) EVF implementation was fundamentally that Leica released the camera with a processor and EVF which was frozen in time, not actually state of the art and unable to cope with an upgrade offered by the supplier within 6 months of release (when most buyers had not yet taken delivery). Remember the premium charged for Olympus putting LEICA on the EVF instead of VF-2? The VF-4 was not developed overnight. Leica made a conscious decision to stick with the Maestro processor (Paul seems to have vanished, but if I recall correctly he was complaining that the Maestro was pretty old hat at that time); when buying the VF-2 from Olympus, I simply do not believe that Olympus did not offer the VF-4 to Leica, or that Leica was unaware that improved EVFs would become available shortly and failed to provide for that. Leica was already starting the development the SL when the M(240) was released - a camera whose sole existence is based on EVF technology being close to an optical SLR viewfinder. I bought the SL (and my M cameras) for the very reasons Bernd outlines so well; and I didn't buy the M(240) for the same reasons. With backwards compatibility in the M system going back to the LTM lenses (I'm using a 1948 Summitar), the failure to even pay lip service to compatibility with an EVF which went to market 6 months after release (I'm not sure that Jaap is quite right on this, but that's not the point) is inconsistent with the Leica M philosophy. Sure, electronics are different etc, etc and a large part of the problem is the failure (refusal) of the manufacturers (Sony is the worst) to accept standardisation, but Leica dropped the ball on this for me. I knew that the moment this camera was released, and I think I said so at the time. For me, any add-on, clip on, accessory or technological advance included in an M camera has to match the quality of the optical rangefinder and the rest of the camera; otherwise I will do without it, thank you. We're in a space of diminishing returns now; I believe it is commercially possible and viable with current manufacturing techniques for Leica (a to be able to continue to supply sensors, processors and other electronic bits to repair and support its current products indefinitely (that is nothing more than a matter of contract - there are plenty of industrial applications where low tech components are available long term);and (b to require future electronics to fit the physical limitations of the current M cameras, potentially enabling upgrades. Yet, each Leica camera comes with a different battery, a different charger and a different processor and sensor on each release; but each camera has a brass body, leather or equivalent covering and feels like it will work for a hundred years. We pay that price, yet inside it's a different story ... I love my SL and my M cameras, but I am under no illusion that at some point when the cameras still look like new, some crappy piece of electronics will fail and Leica will tell me that they can't keep it going. If you track back and try to work out the reason Leica will be in that position, it will be the same thinking (and probably the same person) who said stick with the Maestro processor and go with the VF-2 EVF ... not good enough, but I'm still here (more fool me). Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 20, 2015 Share #70 Posted December 20, 2015 Well, whatever else, the idea of an improved EVF is not something that wakes me up trembling with anticipation in the middle of the night. It is just an auxiliary system that does an adequate job, especially with long zooms. The camera is intended as a rangefinder camera, and that is what it does best. For EVF focusing there are EVIL cameras, the most interesting one for Leica aficionados being the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 20, 2015 Share #71 Posted December 20, 2015 Well, whatever else, the idea of an improved EVF is not something that wakes me up trembling with anticipation in the middle of the night. It is just an auxiliary system that does an adequate job, especially with long zooms. The camera is intended as a rangefinder camera, and that is what it does best. For EVF focusing there are EVIL cameras, the most interesting one for Leica aficionados being the SL. That almost sounds like an acknowledgement ... careful, Jaap. For using M, R, SL, S, T, C (have I forgotten any?) there is certainly the SL, and yes the optical viewfinder is exemplary - the very raison d'être of the Leica M, still the best system for 28-90mm, in my opinion. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictoriaC Posted December 21, 2015 Share #72 Posted December 21, 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 disagree with you. "No wide angle effect, no increased or decreased field-of-view, no depth-of-field effect"? Really? Why do we have different lenses on our Ms then? Or zooms? Why do I have a set of f/1.4 lenses and a Noctilux 0.95? I may be mistaken but I think that the rangefinder goes back to a time when the mirror mechanism of the SLR had yet to be produced (?) and as much as I have enjoyed Canon and nikon and Pentax SLRs in my past, I love the M240 and my M6 and M7 for their aesthetic loveliness AND the lens results... the fact that the lenses are beautifully compact (save for the f/0.95) is a mega bonus too! A built-in EVF would mean I would never have to use that annoying "piece of plastic" stuck on top of my M again (I like what it gives me but I hate its design and it being on top) and I could use my flash mount for other things such as the thumb-aid or an external mic. To say it's "the core reason it exists in the first place" ?! Please. Anyway, excuse me for getting so rattled, we are each entitled to our opinion. One last thing: I wonder how many regular users of this forum would actually be against a built-in EVF versus the same question asked in the Facebook M240 User Group which has over 10,000 members? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 21, 2015 Share #73 Posted December 21, 2015 [...] I wonder how many regular users of this forum would actually be against a built-in EVF [...] At least this one . There are excellent EVILs for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffry Abt Posted December 21, 2015 Share #74 Posted December 21, 2015 I have no interest in a built-in EVF on the M. A clip on EVF is fine with me. Although I would like it to be updated for the new M when it comes out.( I'm a member of Facebook M240 User Group as well, if that makes a differance to any one. I come to this forum fare more often.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 21, 2015 Share #75 Posted December 21, 2015 At least this one . There are excellent EVILs for that. Me too, and exactly. Buy a purpose designed system not a compromise. I've tried to explain why fitting an EVF would be potentially very problematic earlier, and even if it could be fitted it would be soon outdated. Do we really want a 'perpetual upgrade' camera - as in one which needs upgrading (to a newer model) because its EVF is not up to the later standard or fails? We've been here before and it causes as much angst as it deals with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted December 21, 2015 Share #76 Posted December 21, 2015 Me too, and exactly. Buy a purpose designed system not a compromise. I've tried to explain why fitting an EVF would be potentially very problematic earlier, and even if it could be fitted it would be soon outdated. Do we really want a 'perpetual upgrade' camera - as in one which needs upgrading (to a newer model) because its EVF is not up to the later standard or fails? We've been here before and it causes as much angst as it deals with. I wouldn't mind an integrated EVF that toggles between EVF and OVF, as long as it meant no compromises on the OVF optics. It is already a perpetual upgrade camera, thanks to the sensor. Sensor technology improves over time. And that is not a bad thing, for do you want to be stuck for decades with no improvements to dynamic range, noise and resolution? Progress is not a dirty word. The M is about engineering perfection, not stagnation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 21, 2015 Share #77 Posted December 21, 2015 One last thing: I wonder how many regular users of this forum would actually be against a built-in EVF versus the same question asked in the Facebook M240 User Group which has over 10,000 members? I have said before that if Leica brought out an M-sized-equivalent with a built-in EVF like the SL or better, in parallel with a new M with just an OVF/RF, I would have to have a hard think about which one I would choose - it's not a foregone conclusion, and I wouldn't want both. (And I suspect the technology is not yet up to a seamlessly combined OVF/RF/EVF in an M-sized body.) I'd be surprised if Leica did this, but who knows how far advanced manufacturing technology has progressed towards allowing two versions of the same camera, M-OVF and M-EVF, at little extra cost. I'm a FB and LUF user. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 21, 2015 Share #78 Posted December 21, 2015 I disagree with you. "No wide angle effect, no increased or decreased field-of-view, no depth-of-field effect"? Really? Why do we have different lenses on our Ms then? Or zooms? Why do I have a set of f/1.4 lenses and a Noctilux 0.95? I may be mistaken Yes, I think you have misunderstood the point Marc was making. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 21, 2015 Share #79 Posted December 21, 2015 It is already a perpetual upgrade camera, thanks to the sensor. Sensor technology improves over time. And that is not a bad thing, for do you want to be stuck for decades with no improvements to dynamic range, noise and resolution? Progress is not a dirty word. The M is about engineering perfection, not stagnation. I do not feel constrained by the existing and even outdated sensors currently. Cameras, and certainly the M series. are better than they have ever been. Improved dynamic range may well become a reality and when it does the M will be even better. BUT, utilising a 'current state of the art but soon to be outdated EVF' doesn't actually enhance images and adds in an upgrade step because many will clamour for better when available. Even, that is, if an EVF can be built in which I doubt. Why is it that people want to modify a perfectly effectively functioning product when other less compromised designs already exist? Why exactly do we need a rangefinder AND an EVF? I seem to remember that Alpa built a rangefinder into one of their SLRs which was of course a huge success. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 21, 2015 Share #80 Posted December 21, 2015 One last thing: I wonder how many regular users of this forum would actually be against a built-in EVF versus the same question asked in the Facebook M240 User Group which has over 10,000 members? Well, I suppose there is considerable overlap between FB and this forum with about five times the number of members, so I doubt that you would find much difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.