Jump to content

Leica EVF2 Replacement Coming?


photoray

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was talking with a Leica dealer recently, who mentioned that he had heard that the EVF2 may have a replacement coming at some point.

 

I use one on my M240.  Has anyone heard of a potential new replacement EVF viewfinder for the M240 from Leica?

 

Thanks -

 

N

Link to post
Share on other sites

The refresh rate of the current EVF is nothing but awful, and I'm led to understand it's a limitation of the processing engine within the M240, not the EVF.

Olympus have an updated EVF, the VF-4, which is superior to the VF-2 in many ways, eg twice the number of pixels. However, even though the interface of the VF-2 and VF-4 are identical, the M240 camera is incapable of meeting the higher processing demands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a replacement but understand what Steve mentions about the limitation being within the M240.

 

f Leica could somehow fix this they will generate my personal demand for: a Leica M  21mm,  the Leica 135mm 3.4 APO,  an M to R adapter and the Leica R 180 3.4 APO telyt .

 

fingers crossed and hoping      

Link to post
Share on other sites

That will be the limited black paint S.T. Dupont pen collection version of the EVF where all engravings are muted with a matte-black anodized finish. Only 95 will be made world wide, at $1,200 a piece.

 

I heard that each EVF of the edition will be accompanied by a certificate that emphasizes its uniqueness, and guarantees that the refresh rate is the same as that of the Olympus EVF-2.  ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was talking with a Leica dealer recently, who mentioned that he had heard that the EVF2 may have a replacement coming at some point.

 

I use one on my M240.  Has anyone heard of a potential new replacement EVF viewfinder for the M240 from Leica?

 

Thanks -

 

N

Oh yes - together with a replacement for the M240 to mount it on.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any quarrel with the resolution or refresh rate of the EVF2 (I have the Olympus clone).  The issue I have is the time lag between taking a shot and when the EVF comes back on line.  I guess that's due to the camera, so an updated EVF wouldn't solve it.  Primarily the M is a rangefinder for me, that's why I bought it.  The EVF is a nifty accessory for the occasional long telephoto or macro shot.  It also allows very precise framing such as with landscapes, where the lag time isn't much of an issue, but tbh after many decades with a Leica I'm pretty good at guaging how far outside the frame lines the actual capture will be at long distances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My viso 1,2,&3 have lighting fast refresh.

Really? The delay before release is in the order of half a second to a second (result: Heavy Lens Droop), the refresh rate on the 1 and 2 is about a minute to wind the mirror down...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? The delay before release is in the order of half a second to a second (result: Heavy Lens Droop), the refresh rate on the 1 and 2 is about a minute to wind the mirror down...

Idk if it's a minute to reset the mirror on a II (been awhile since I had one), but even with the instant return mirror on the III I found there is one thing that slows it down worse than the EVF on the M, and that is the fact the cameras (M7,8 and 9 I'm speaking of) didn't always register an accurate meter reading in auto mode, as the meter cell is only exposed to light after the viso's mirror flips up and before the 1st curtain opens.  So I felt obliged to meter and shoot separately, which as I said, I found slower than the EVF lag by far.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right ^, but even manual (TTL) metering means flipping up the mirror, then reading the diodes through the OVF (estimating the FOV being read by the meter, which is quite difficult if you're using say a 400mm lens because that FOV is about 66% of the area of the rangefinder patch!), then flipping down the mirror (assuming your subject isn't static and/or the rig isn't on a tripod) to recheck composition, then shoot.   We mustn't forget that the most recent Visoflex (III) came on the scene in 1963, some 8 years before the M5, and was discontinued 3 years before the M6.  Clearly it was not designed with TTL metering in mind. 

 

I used a Visoflex for decades, up through the M9, and between the weight, bulk, and slow, awkward operation, not to mention the thickness precludes using any SLR lens or M lens (aside from the few that can be fitted with a short focus mount) for anything but extreme closeups, I really have a hard time understanding how anyone can justify asserting that live-view and the EVF (even in it's current form) are not far more useful and convenient. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Measure once and leave it ;)

All you say is true, but for all that the view on that glorious ground glass beats any modern viewfinder hollow, especially those TV sets that pass for viewfinders nowadays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Measure once and leave it ;)

All you say is true, but for all that the view on that glorious ground glass beats any modern viewfinder hollow, especially those TV sets that pass for viewfinders nowadays.

 

 

 

I'll probably get hammered for this... but I really don't understand.

 

As far as I am concerned, the viewfinder gives approximate framing (I'll refine composition in PP - there are ALWAYS elements you don't notice when you are working quickly -  it could just be bit of litter that spoils a composition... or something  you didn't notice and find a better image with well judged cropping) and the rangefinder is just for hitting focus... or the EVF, as we are discussing here.

 

So why do so many people spend so much time discussing the merits or otherwise of the viewfinder... or any EVF for that matter...

 

Its not not as if any of the artefacts or poor resolution appear in the final image...

 

If I can nail focus and I get close to the approximate framing I want, I'm done...  ;)

 

Unless of course, the tools are more important than the work... but that's not me... and certainly not why I bought Leica. I bought it because I feel more in control of the elements I know contribute to what I'm trying to achieve. That's it...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll probably get hammered for this... but I really don't understand.

 

As far as I am concerned, the viewfinder gives approximate framing (I'll refine composition in PP - there are ALWAYS elements you don't notice when you are working quickly -  it could just be bit of litter that spoils a composition... or something  you didn't notice and find a better image with well judged cropping) and the rangefinder is just for hitting focus... or the EVF, as we are discussing here.

 

So why do so many people spend so much time discussing the merits or otherwise of the viewfinder... or any EVF for that matter...

 

Its not not as if any of the artefacts or poor resolution appear in the final image...

 

If I can nail focus and I get close to the approximate framing I want, I'm done...  ;)

 

Unless of course, the tools are more important than the work... but that's not me... and certainly not why I bought Leica. I bought it because I feel more in control of the elements I know contribute to what I'm trying to achieve. That's it...

 

I suppose for me, I just enjoy the experience of shooting with the rangefinder OVF. I can probably achieve the same result, i.e. pixels, with a lot of cameras, but I can't get the same shooting experience. I've yet to meet an EVF that I like more than looking through the viewfinder of a Leica M. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...