cirke Posted July 7, 2016 Author Share #81 Posted July 7, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) My suggestion is to get a M with an Electronic RF or built in EVF , not something extern and of course the best sensor possible ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 7, 2016 Posted July 7, 2016 Hi cirke, Take a look here no rumors. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted July 7, 2016 Share #82 Posted July 7, 2016 They'd have to call it something else, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 7, 2016 Author Share #83 Posted July 7, 2016 They'd have to call it something else, though. with an electronic RF or half optic electronic not Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 7, 2016 Share #84 Posted July 7, 2016 True. I would expect a full-electronic version to be a derivate, though, not the main model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 7, 2016 Author Share #85 Posted July 7, 2016 The main thing for me, and you know why :-) , is to have a core EVF or ERF or half/whatever I shall not go on with an extern EVF even if I love M lenses Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted July 7, 2016 Share #86 Posted July 7, 2016 I hope that whatever they will come out with they will continue with the next iteration of Monochrom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted July 7, 2016 Share #87 Posted July 7, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Count me in the camp of add-on evf being less than ideal. But OTOH, its still far and away better than add-on optical finders. I would certainly consider a next gen model that continued the external EVF, assuming it was up to the standard of the other offerings, but it doesn't change the fact that I don't like the added lump on top in the bag nor futzin around with putting it on and taking it off nor the amount of head bobbing between VFs I seem to do when its attached. I'd far prefer an integrated solution. If an EVF only RF model designation is something other than M, I could care less. Some may see OVF as integral to the Ms identity, I can certainly understand that position, but AFAIC, if its from Leica, parallax focused and mounts M glass natively, OVF or no, its essence is M enough for me, no matter what its called. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 7, 2016 Author Share #88 Posted July 7, 2016 The essence of M was portability Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted July 7, 2016 Share #89 Posted July 7, 2016 True. I would expect a full-electronic version to be a derivate, though, not the main model. And you'd expect right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Root Posted July 8, 2016 Share #90 Posted July 8, 2016 EVF is a bad idea for manual aperture lenses because it requires stopping down for critical focus and I am not interested in calisthenics. Best for Leica to introduce electronic confirmation working in concert with the existing rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 8, 2016 Share #91 Posted July 8, 2016 The clip on EVF is very useful, I think. The fact it becomes a waist level finder, can really help finding angles, so it suits a purpose. I like the fact you can take it off too. But to me the current design looks like an after thought, quite unharmonious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted July 8, 2016 Share #92 Posted July 8, 2016 The clip on EVF is very useful, I think. The fact it becomes a waist level finder, can really help finding angles, so it suits a purpose. True, but the flip side is that when the camera is in portrait it often rather inconveniently flops outward as one moves around for framing. Something which I find very annoying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2016 Share #93 Posted July 8, 2016 I find the present 240/add-on EVF set-up ok, could be better but I've known worse……..much worse. I've the Olympus EVF which I've constantly read is the same as the Leica brand but in a slightly different package and it's just fine for my usage. As to it's function it does the job because even though I love the RF OVF on the M's there's times when it just doesn't work well, say when using lenses wider than 28mm. Of course the same goes for lenses longer than 50mm, but for me that's an event that's as rare as finding hen's teeth. This is where the can EVF option can shine as too can a clip-on OVF but with less control and informational options. Framing with an M is hit or miss, and that's simply the nature of the beast. If you want precise framing you pick up a DSLR, an MF reflex or a 4x5 camera. RF cameras with OVF's are meant for quick framing and then sorting in post and printing. Basically all you need to know and quickly is whether what you are photographing is in the frame, well that's what I need anyway, and that's where the M RF system excels. Sure an EVF on a rangefinder camera is a bit of an oxymoron, but in this case it's simply a convenient add-on tool that gives you the choice of using it or tossing it back in the bag without adding any appreciable weight or complication to the basic camera. If they do bring out another M with a better clip-on EVF available that'll be great, but for me what we have now is just fine. I just hope that the next iteration of the M isn't overly complicated with any kind of a combination OVF/Electronic gizmo finder. Too far from the heart for my taste. "KISS". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 8, 2016 Author Share #94 Posted July 8, 2016 EVF is a bad idea for manual aperture lenses because it requires stopping down for critical focus and I am not interested in calisthenics. Best for Leica to introduce electronic confirmation working in concert with the existing rangefinder. it is exactly the contrary , very easy to focus a Noctilux wide open with EVF , Optic RF requires stopping down Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 8, 2016 Author Share #95 Posted July 8, 2016 using it or tossing it back in the bag without adding any appreciable weight or complication to the basic camera. On and off many times a day and this will happen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2016 Share #96 Posted July 8, 2016 On and off many times a day and this will happen sorry that's happened in your case erick, I've had no trouble at all over the years even using it many times a day as you say you have done……..But then why take it on and off if you know that during a day's shoot your likely or not to use it again? I hope your M's connection gets sorted for you soon…….. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 8, 2016 Author Share #97 Posted July 8, 2016 I take it off to put it in the bag , I definitively dont like it to be removable Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 8, 2016 Share #98 Posted July 8, 2016 To each his/her own. If i need a TTL camera i take a Nikon or a Sony. If i want a DRF i take my M240 but i'm glad to have an accessory EVF in my bag. Great to use the EVF as a waist level VF also. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted July 8, 2016 Share #99 Posted July 8, 2016 Protect me from an EVF in an M !!! There is live view and an external EVF if you want. Very useful BTW for telephoto and for very wider angle. I want to keep my peripheral vision, clear site, no night drag, zero lag RF for 24 to 135 please ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmen Posted July 8, 2016 Share #100 Posted July 8, 2016 What would you see in an electronic view and range finder? Imagine that the viewfinder as well as the range finder second eye are replaced with small cameras, some interesting combination of information could be generated on the finder display. It could be that the actual image from the full sensor is put in the center, possibly always taking up 75% of the frame. The border around it would get info from the small viewfinder camera. The central patch can show both the central portion of the viewfinder and the second range finder eye, creating overlapping images just like the purely optical rangefinder does today. How else would you imagine it? I'd still worry about it being delayed and insufficient detailed, but the advantage could be a variable magnification, while still seeing beyond the borders of the lens, the ability to see true final image colors and brightness range. The rangefinder bit might even be done combining only the sensor image and viewfinder image,doing away with the second eye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.