MRJohn Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share #101 Posted December 21, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) This thread is turning a bit amusing. It started with a simple question and now it is almost a believe-driven debate about the survival of the OVF. 1. Who says that current M users in the majority want to maintain the internal OVF over a proper internal EVF? I have not seen a representative survey on this. I have seen many outspoken forumists who want to keep the OVF, but maybe this is just a forum bias. I would never think that my opinion is representative, nor should others think that theirs is. The sample size in this forum thread is just too small for time being. It almost seems as if people are afraid that Leica, reading the LUF, might draw wrong conclusions about what "we" want, or rather not. 2. While I respect everybody's opinion here, just as a general principle, if we suggest that Leica should stop innovating the M, then I am afraid that this will be the end of the M. Leica can only make money in the future if they add features or make things better - to a level that folks put down fresh money. Otherwise nobody will buy it after a while and they will stop supporting it. So which features do we graciously "allow" them to evolve: 1. the sensor? - No, we are happy with 24 MP (I actually would not mind 36 or 48 since I crop at times). 2. 4k video? - hell, no, this is an M, go get an SL 3. more frames per second? - not necessary, good enough, get an SL 4. leather? - oh yes, a la carte is great 5. top plate? - certainly, a la carte is great 6. VF? - read the thread, get an SL - the OVF is sacred on the M 7. stereo microphone? - you are kidding me, get an SL 8. tethering? - get an SL 9. Programmable buttons? - hm, perhaps, sounds useful, but worth another 6k? 10. Gaffer tape? - no, I'd rather see a bottle opener build into the strap (sorry JAPPV ) 11. shutter sound? - no objections to sound tuning ... I am tempted to conclude that if we don't allow Leica to innovate the M we will all have to switch to an SL eventually once our last M becomes unrepairable and the last available M has been sold years ago. There has been a lot of negativity about touching the OVF, perhaps rightly so for time being, but we should give Leica some clear directions what would prompt us to obtain the next M. For me it would clearly be an EyeRes internal VF in a parallel M line. But I don't need people telling people like me they should go get an SL. Because obviously, if the next M has an external EyeRes EVF which we would keep on all the time, we might as well get an SL right away. And the more people think this way, the fewer people will buy an M, putting the line at risk. Safe the M, think how it can be done in a sustainable way for Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 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!
IkarusJohn Posted December 21, 2015 Share #102 Posted December 21, 2015 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. All true, but the fact that in the three years since the M(240) was released Leica has not produced a single M mount lens outside the 16-135 range of the M camera would suggest that it is committed to the rangefinder system. The EVF will always be an accessory for the M system, in my view. Any future lens development wider than 16 and longer than 135 will surely be L mount. Lots of hope expressed here about the evolution of the M into something new - let's think about that. Yes, the M stands for messucher (window - M3, three windows), but that is just words - you could call it Betty and it would still be a fabulous camera. The limiting issue is 60 years of M mount lenses, mechanically linked to the rangefinder mechanism and the M mount. Those who know far more than I do about these things have pointed out with considerable clarity that if you're starting afresh with a mirrorless camera, you wouldn't use the M mount as it's too narrow. If you go back to the SL thread, you will read lots of comparisons with the diameter of the Sony A7 mount (E-mount?), the M mount and the SL mount - for 35mm, the sweet spot is the SL size (also used in the T camera). The rangefinder and the M mount go hand in hand - there's no point trying to turn it into something else, as it will always be compromised. The name SL stands for spiegellos (mirrorless), and it is almost certainly going to be the platform for future lens development of lenses for EVF based cameras. We already have the SL and the T in 35mm. Will Leica develop another L mount camera in the 35mm format just to make it smaller for those who love the M cameras? I sorely doubt it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 21, 2015 Share #103 Posted December 21, 2015 This thread is turning a bit amusing. It started with a simple question and now it is almost a believe-driven debate about the survival of the OVF. 1. Who says that current M users in the majority want to maintain the internal OVF over a proper internal EVF? I have not seen a representative survey on this. I have seen many outspoken forumists who want to keep the OVF, but maybe this is just a forum bias. I would never think that my opinion is representative, nor should others think that theirs is. The sample size in this forum thread is just too small for time being. It almost seems as if people are afraid that Leica, reading the LUF, might draw wrong conclusions about what "we" want, or rather not. 2. While I respect everybody's opinion here, just as a general principle, if we suggest that Leica should stop innovating the M, then I am afraid that this will be the end of the M. Leica can only make money in the future if they add features or make things better - to a level that folks put down fresh money. Otherwise nobody will buy it after a while and they will stop supporting it. So which features do we graciously "allow" them to evolve: 1. the sensor? - No, we are happy with 24 MP (I actually would not mind 36 or 48 since I crop at times). 2. 4k video? - hell, no, this is an M, go get an SL 3. more frames per second? - not necessary, good enough, get an SL 4. leather? - oh yes, a la carte is great 5. top plate? - certainly, a la carte is great 6. VF? - read the thread, get an SL - the OVF is sacred on the M 7. stereo microphone? - you are kidding me, get an SL 8. tethering? - get an SL 9. Programmable buttons? - hm, perhaps, sounds useful, but worth another 6k? 10. Gaffer tape? - no, I'd rather see a bottle opener build into the strap (sorry JAPPV ) 11. shutter sound? - no objections to sound tuning ... I am tempted to conclude that if we don't allow Leica to innovate the M we will all have to switch to an SL eventually once our last M becomes unrepairable and the last available M has been sold years ago. There has been a lot of negativity about touching the OVF, perhaps rightly so for time being, but we should give Leica some clear directions what would prompt us to obtain the next M. For me it would clearly be an EyeRes internal VF in a parallel M line. But I don't need people telling people like me they should go get an SL. Because obviously, if the next M has an external EyeRes EVF which we would keep on all the time, we might as well get an SL right away. And the more people think this way, the fewer people will buy an M, putting the line at risk. Safe the M, think how it can be done in a sustainable way for Leica. Conclusion: Work on improving the RF/VF even more Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRJohn Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share #104 Posted December 21, 2015 Conclusion: Work on improving the RF/VF even more So what's your problem with the existing RF/VF? Is there one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictoriaC Posted December 21, 2015 Share #105 Posted December 21, 2015 Yes, I think you have misunderstood the point Marc was making. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictoriaC Posted December 21, 2015 Share #106 Posted December 21, 2015 You know, this has been one of the more interesting threads to read of late… thank you. Oh and wattsy, please don't quote me out of context. The "mistaken…" line was part of the following paragraph and not referring to the paragraph you chose to include in your quote of me. :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 21, 2015 Share #107 Posted December 21, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) All true, but the fact that in the three years since the M(240) was released Leica has not produced a single M mount lens outside the 16-135 range of the M camera would suggest that it is committed to the rangefinder system. The EVF will always be an accessory for the M system, in my view. Any future lens development wider than 16 and longer than 135 will surely be L mount. Indeed. I'm not suggesting anything different. My main and almost only serious use of the EVF is for very specific focussing needs that sometimes arise in low light with fast short to medium teles like a 75 or 90. That is when an EVF has been invaluable to me on a couple of occasions. Not as alternative means of using lenses outside the traditional M range, for the regular use of which I agree other cameras including the SL are far better suited. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 21, 2015 Share #108 Posted December 21, 2015 You know, this has been one of the more interesting threads to read of late… thank you. Oh and wattsy, please don't quote me out of context. The "mistaken…" line was part of the following paragraph and not referring to the paragraph you chose to include in your quote of me. :-) Hi Victoria, I don't think Ian was misquoting you; he was pointing out that your were responding to a point that Marc wasn't making. It doesn't matter now (we've moved on) but you responded very quickly and appeared to have misunderstood Marc's point - Ian was just pointing that out. Your point was well made, by the way. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 21, 2015 Share #109 Posted December 21, 2015 Indeed. I'm not suggesting anything different. My main and almost only serious use of the EVF is for very specific focussing needs that sometimes arise in low light with fast short to medium teles like a 75 or 90. That is when an EVF has been invaluable to me on a couple of occasions. Not as alternative means of using lenses outside the traditional M range, for the regular use of which I agree other cameras including the SL are far better suited. I know Jaap doesn't like them, but I use the 1.4 magnifier for focus critical shots 50-75-90mm. They work a treat, but you do have to keep them clean. I'm intrigued at the suggestions of improvement to the OVF. It was last revised in the M(240) - I wonder what improvements will (or can) be made ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 21, 2015 Share #110 Posted December 21, 2015 "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? Presumably because you ultimately want to see those effects on screen and/or in print. But you won't see them through the M VF, which acts more as a window on the world as opposed to a (D)SLR VF that sees through your lenses. Not better or worse necessarily, but different for sure. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 21, 2015 Share #111 Posted December 21, 2015 So what's your problem with the existing RF/VF? Is there one? Yes time and money spent to get the optical RF properly paired with both legacy and modern M lenses. An electronic RF could fix the problem eventually. But this has nothing to do with EVFs that will replace the M's OVF when pigs can fly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 21, 2015 Share #112 Posted December 21, 2015 So what's your problem with the existing RF/VF? Is there one? There are things that could be improved - more precision, ease of use of longer lenses, focus confirmation off the focus patch for the benefit of old fogies like me, single framelines, etc... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 21, 2015 Share #113 Posted December 21, 2015 This thread is turning a bit amusing. It started with a simple question and now it is almost a believe-driven debate about the survival of the OVF. I wasn't around in forums then, but I am sure there were similar debates up and down the land about the survival of film once digital images first started to challenge film in IQ. The encouraging thing for those of the "EVF in a M-size package? Over my dead body" persuasion is that film IS still around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRJohn Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share #114 Posted December 21, 2015 There are things that could be improved - more precision, ease of use of longer lenses, focus confirmation off the focus patch for the benefit of old fogies like me, single framelines, etc... 1-3 solved by proper EVF. Virtual framelines possible toward tele-end Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 21, 2015 Share #115 Posted December 21, 2015 Err... No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 21, 2015 Share #116 Posted December 21, 2015 I know Jaap doesn't like them, but I use the 1.4 magnifier for focus critical shots 50-75-90mm. They work a treat, but you do have to keep them clean. I'm intrigued at the suggestions of improvement to the OVF. It was last revised in the M(240) - I wonder what improvements will (or can) be made ... I'm delighted with the OVF in the M240 (it is certainly an improvement over the M9's which was already very good) and I find it much easier and quicker to focus than my M9, and by all accounts it's more robust too. So aside from offering different magnification levels as they did with the M6, I can't really think of anything else, and that level of personalisation is probably a step too far given the variety of camera bodies Leica now produces. The most interesting OVF in recent years is Fuji's hybrid but I don't think it would be suitable for the M although I suppose something like that might be possible. It does throw up all sorts of issues though, for example whether you have variable frame lines or a variable magnification according to the lens attached, and as soon as you start thinking about it the more issues it raises. Like many hybrids, you aim for the best of both worlds and are liable to end up with the worst, at least for some people, and end up losing enthusiasts of both EVF and OFV systems. I hope more for an improved sensor. I'm not too fussed about pixel count or higher ISO, although I suppose there might be some benefits there. Greater colour fidelity and subtelty and ability to hold the tones of each hue in a far wider range of exposure situations would be a wonderful step forward. Now that we understand that Monochrom versions are realistic and work so well, I'd like to see Leica put a huge effort into improving the digital handling of colour which I think still has some way to go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 21, 2015 Share #117 Posted December 21, 2015 There are things that could be improved - more precision, ease of use of longer lenses, focus confirmation off the focus patch for the benefit of old fogies like me, single framelines, etc... The problem here is a legacy one. More precision, well er, yes, BUT we are stuck with the existent RF cams on older lenses which are what they are, so the existing RF is mature and has tolerances which may not allow for a higher precision rangefinder to actually yield better focus. In case nobody has figured it, my opinion is that Leica would be far better placed to build an M sized camera which has lots of innovation but which is not saddled with the legacies surrounding the existing M lenses. The M is a mature camera and will continue to sell for what it is and its attributes. Adding to it involves too many compromises and dilutes its appeal for what it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 21, 2015 Share #118 Posted December 21, 2015 Maybe Leica will produce two M types to serve different audiences, one for the 'traditionalists' and one with more innovation (albeit retaining RF in some form). To an extent this occurs already with different versions/special editions, but maybe the M262 signified more than just a temporary M240 phase-out model (as the M-E was to the M9). Of course this would depend on market assessment, service and supply issues, etc, which we're in no position to judge. I'm guessing the new M will surprise in some way. Meanwhile there are plenty of good choices already for me, with the M240 serving its purpose, so this is all just sideline amusement. The only sure thing is that whatever the next M, there will be haters and enthusiasts here on the forum....guaranteed. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted December 21, 2015 Share #119 Posted December 21, 2015 As I said, there may be an EVF camera in the future that is smaller than the SL. It may even be a native M-mount camera. It could be a smart move by Leica to market something like this as a new Leica CL, and at the right price point, I wouldn't object, but this will not be the next M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRJohn Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share #120 Posted December 21, 2015 Err... No. I do not have 40plusthousand posts so there is always a chance I am not getting it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.