Will next M feature internal Epson EVF?

[Mike Rawcs]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

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.

Because if you wear spectacles you probably won't be able to see the 28mm framelines and wider lenses will need an auxiliary viewfinder. I love the rangefinder experience but it limits me to 35mm and 50mm lenses. In other words, the camera is not a perfectly functioning product.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Peter H]

Because if you wear spectacles you probably won't be able to see the 28mm framelines and wider lenses will need an auxiliary viewfinder. I love the rangefinder experience but it limits me to 35mm and 50mm lenses. In other words, the camera is not a perfectly functioning product.

 

This is a very powerful point, and a perfect example of why I like the detachable EVF option that the M gives us. 

 

If the EVF is up to scratch, it is the closest to the best of both worlds in the M form that I can realistically  imagine.

[Peter Kilmister]

In the early 20th century optical rangefinders were used on warships to enable data to be passed to an analogue computer (slide rule) which calculated the range for gunnery.

(A system developed by Frederic Dreyer of the Royal Navy. I knew his son, Desmond.)

 

The last recorded use of an optical rangefinder in action was by the US Navy during the 1991 Gulf war. Even during the second world war many warships had replaced the use of optical rangefinders with radar.

(Although they still had optical rangefinders in case their radar went on the blink.)

 

Perhaps the optical rangefinder of an M will be replaced by a more modern and accurate method?

[Peter H]

In the early 20th century optical rangefinders were used on warships to enable data to be passed to an analogue computer (slide rule) which calculated the range for gunnery.

(A system developed by Frederic Dreyer of the Royal Navy. I knew his son, Desmond.)

 

The last recorded use of an optical rangefinder in action was by the US Navy during the 1991 Gulf war. Even during the second world war many warships had replaced the use of optical rangefinders with radar.

(Although they still had optical rangefinders in case their radar went on the blink.)

 

Perhaps the optical rangefinder of an M will be replaced by a more modern and accurate method?

 

But, probably unlike a military guidance system (what would I know?) , whilst being extremely important accuracy is not the only requirement of a camera viewfinder system.

[BerndReini]

I don't even understand why anyone would argue about any of this. If you are one of the unfortunate view, who haven't been appreciating any of the huge advantages of the rangefinder other than the size of the M cameras and lenses, but have been so hampered by its shortcomings, then Leica has just released the perfect camera for you: the SL.

 

I'm sure they will one day make a mini-SL, which will be exactly what you are looking for. The M will remain the rangefinder camera, which happened to revive Leica as a company with the release of the M8. I will bet that an EVF in the next M will remain an add-on simply because an omission of an optical rangefinder would cause a mutiny, and the integration of both into the camera body would likely make an M bigger and heavier, and if you have been paying any attention to this forum, you'll know that this is definitely not something users want.

[pgk]

Because if you wear spectacles you probably won't be able to see the 28mm framelines and wider lenses will need an auxiliary viewfinder. I love the rangefinder experience but it limits me to 35mm and 50mm lenses. In other words, the camera is not a perfectly functioning product.

I use lenses from 21mm to 90mm, wear spectacles and find it works just fine for me. So we are down to opinions I'm afraid.

[AlanJW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The debate over "best technology" and whether Leica had it in the past or has it now is really silly IMHO.

 

Two years from now I am sure that someone will write here that Leica missed the boat on some technology that "could have easily" been incorporated in the SL or the Q or the new M.    Maybe EVF technology, Maybe IBIS.   Who knows?  But I think people like me buy Leicas not because they are the most advanced technology (though the SL EVF may be -- at the moment) but because Leica has a way of putting features together in an understandable and in my view very ergonomic way that allows one to work without thinking too much about it.   The camera does not get in the way of what I am trying to do. 

 

Some will complain that Leica has included things they don't want or need but most of the time you can ignore what you don't need and set up a Leica to behave very simply, while having the features available even if you seldom or ever use them.

 

Others will complain that Leica is making the wrong cameras for the wrong people and will offer advice on what Leica should do to stay alive.

 

The one constant is that people will complain. Each one complaining will be convinced of their correctness as if another point of view was heresy.  The saving grace (sorry for the religious terms but they are apt) is that Leica will figure things out on its own even if it stumbles sometimes.  This is why I continue to have an empty wallet.

[jaapv]

Mike Rawcs, on 21 Dec 2015 - 14:45, said:

Because if you wear spectacles you probably won't be able to see the 28mm framelines and wider lenses will need an auxiliary viewfinder. I love the rangefinder experience but it limits me to 35mm and 50mm lenses. In other words, the camera is not a perfectly functioning product.

What is wrong with using 75, 90 and 135 mm lenses on the rangefinder? - Works perfectly fine for me, and I don't even bother using an EVF for lenses of 24 downwards. Zeiss has beautiful optical viewfinders, which I prefer.

[cirke]

and if you have been paying any attention to this forum, you'll know that this is definitely not something users want.

I pay attention to this forum and it is 50% / 50%

[wattsy]

I pay attention to this forum and it is 50% / 50%

 

I rather doubt that but, even if you are right, the "EVF" 50% have the SL to satisfy their requirements. Seems like the perfect alternative to an M if you like that sort of thing.

[cirke]

I rather doubt that but, even if you are right, the "EVF" 50% have the SL to satisfy their requirements. Seems like the perfect alternative to an M if you like that sort of thing.

The SL is very big and needs a ring

I  (like many users) want a M with a EVF or  ERF

[LocalHero1953]

I am 100% certain that all members of this forum who bought the M for its OVF do not want the OVF replaced by an EVF.

 

That's settled then. Leica, take note.

[jaapv]

I pay attention to this forum and it is 50% / 50%

You mean 50%  you and 50% the rest? 

[cirke]

I am 100% certain that all members of this forum who bought the M for its OVF do not want the OVF replaced by an EVF.

you could be 50% wrong

[lct]

I am 100% sure that i am 0% wrong. Interesting no? 

[pgk]

The SL is very big .....

Do you not think that this says something about the current size requirements of a high quality EVF??? And ECFs need optics too which is probably a significant problem when stuffing them into an M sized body along with a rangefinder.

[IkarusJohn]

I am 100% certain that all members of this forum who bought the M for its OVF do not want the OVF replaced by an EVF.

 

That's settled then. Leica, take note.

 

I doubt Leica will ever dump the OVF in favour of an internal EVF. 

 

The more difficult question is, would they build an M alternative with built in EVF?  To my mind, this would be a bad idea as it would confuse the M system. Leica doesn't make M mount lenses outside the 16-135 range where most pictures are taken - this is also where the M camera feels best and is reasonably compact. For those who want lenses outside that range, or zooms etc, there is the SL. 

 

The EVF will always be secondary to the M system. The lens range is mature, and frankly the EVF is largely unnecessary for M lenses. It is there for the minority who need it from time to time. Sure, there will be exceptions, but if you need an EVF, the SL is a better option. 

[halo]

...a lot of old days dreaming in this thread.

 

(No, the EVF is not only for SL. It has big advantages not only for 16 and 135mm but even as a "Mess-" Finder with two small camera modules, switchable to full EVF. Wait and see.)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter H]

I doubt Leica will ever dump the OVF in favour of an internal EVF. 

 

The more difficult question is, would they build an M alternative with built in EVF?  To my mind, this would be a bad idea as it would confuse the M system. Leica doesn't make M mount lenses outside the 16-135 range where most pictures are taken - this is also where the M camera feels best and is reasonably compact. For those who want lenses outside that range, or zooms etc, there is the SL. 

 

The EVF will always be secondary to the M system. The lens range is mature, and frankly the EVF is largely unnecessary for M lenses. It is there for the minority who need it from time to time. Sure, there will be exceptions, but if you need an EVF, the SL is a better option. 

 

I do agree with this, but with a top quality detachable EVF there's no need to buy another whole camera for the times when you need an EVF which, for many M users I'd guess is not that often otherwise they wouldn't be M users in the first place.

 

And we shouldn't forget (I'm sure you don't)  that many people struggle to afford a Leica, so the whole question of complementary or parallel systems, whilst being valid for some is not possible for everyone. 

[pgk]

...a lot of old days dreaming in this thread.

 

(No, the EVF is not only for SL. It has big advantages not only for 16 and 135mm but even as a "Mess-" Finder with two small camera modules, switchable to full EVF. Wait and see.)

IF Leica decide to build a smaller version of the SL, then it will NOT be designed primarily for M lenses (although as with the SL they may be adapted). It might just use the M mount but I seriously doubt it. Why would Leica build a totally compromised system with superb lenses, but lenses which cannot communicate with the camera body to anything other than a extremely limited extent (6-bit lenses only)?

 

There is a real lack of reality in this discussion. The M system is what it is - a superb rangefinder system which has no peer. An add on EVF is here but is an add on. Fitting an EVF would pose optical problems and most especially if the rangefinder were to be retained. If the rangefinder was to be dispensed with the camera would no longer be an M and it would be compromised by having to use the existing M lenses.

 

What is so difficult to appreciate about all this?