jmahto Posted January 3, 2017 Share #841 Posted January 3, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) As I mentioned in an earlier post, I've put my name on a list for a M10. The camera will replace both my M9 and S2. I've also ordered an EVF for those occasions where I would use the S2 (macro, portraits, etc.). Makes sense to me. Highlight mine.... I would not declare it openly. Just keep it in a hidden pocket and use it when no M purist is watching. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 Hi jmahto, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pop Posted January 3, 2017 Share #842 Posted January 3, 2017 .... So why does a rangefinder camera need an EVF? For close-up work. For work requiring accurate framing. For work where you can not raise the camera to your eye or move your eye to the camera. For longer focal lengths. In short: the camera does not require an EVF. Some photographers would prefer it to be so equiped. There is no camera fit for every existing purpose. Fitting an EVF to a rangefinder camera is straightforward and does not impede the function of that camera in any perceptible way. Everything still works as before. Fitting a rangefinder and the associated frames to an SLR would require quite radical changes to the camera. Why, BTW, does a dSLR need a screen? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 3, 2017 Share #843 Posted January 3, 2017 Aren't you all bored with this topic? 42 pages of speculation, argument, waffle, etc. Wait and see. One day "wait and see" will arrive. Just wait, just calm down .... please! Apprehension is worthless. Criticism of an unannounced product is futile. Criticism of an announced product is objective. Just wait. Then, at that moment, let fly! Bored ? Nope. This is what is called a discussion. Sure, an internet forum may not be the best or easiest or the most efficient way to have discussions but at the moment, it's what we've got. Some views differ, some don't, but all have their merit and are interesting. It would be pretty boring if we all held the same views don't you think ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted January 3, 2017 Share #844 Posted January 3, 2017 Bizarrely, I seem to remember Tailwagger putting my own position in a very clear, brilliant way Uh oh... popcorn or no, I perceive that perhaps its time to slip quietly away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 4, 2017 Share #845 Posted January 4, 2017 Uh oh... popcorn or no, I perceive that perhaps its time to slip quietly away. no need to worry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted January 4, 2017 Share #846 Posted January 4, 2017 My conviction is quite simply that an EVF fundamentally changes the concept of the M rangefinder. You may not appreciate this Peter but that is what it undoubtedly does. As I have repeatedly asked, why is it that nobody is requesting a rangefinder be built into the SL? Could it be that the SL doesn't need one? So why does a rangefinder camera need an EVF? It doesn't need an EVF. It hasn't for many decades. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 4, 2017 Share #847 Posted January 4, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) It doesn't need an EVF. It hasn't for many decades. It doesn't need a half-case either. But plenty of people buy them because they like them, and the M hasn't yet evaporated because of an unnecessary accessory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted January 4, 2017 Share #848 Posted January 4, 2017 There was a reason for Oscar Barnack designing a small and portable camera.".........a evf negates this........ a internal ticks the box Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 4, 2017 Share #849 Posted January 4, 2017 The accessory Visoflex has existed since the early 1950's. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 4, 2017 Share #850 Posted January 4, 2017 I'm impressed that Bill picked this up and ran with it for so long. I'm an ovf user, and I love the simplicity it offers. I disliked the M(240) for many reasons, not least becuase it seemed to be trying to be all things to all men, and doing so badly (in my opinion). The core camera, however, as exemplified by my M60, is a rather fine camera. One of the things I love about the M system is its manual functionality, and its lovely small lenses. The variety of M bodies would suggest (to me) that Leica understands this - curiously, it makes the improved model (M-P), the standard model (M240), the basic model (M262), the lcd-less model of the basic model (M-D), the Monochrom model of the standard version, and three film versions (MP, M7 & M-A). But, all suffer from the limitations inherent in the original M3 design - fixed focal patch, fixed metering point (less critical, perhaps), inaccurate framelines and susceptibility to focus shift (there are others, obviously). The vf-2 provided with the M(240) was a poor offering for what many regard as Leica's flagship system. Looks like the next M camera will be evolutionary, and might have an okay evf, but not as good as in the SL. This has lead many to speculate that the M system, as originally conceived in 1953, has reached the end of the technological line. Certainly, Leica don't seem minded, from the information leaked, to give the M10 the best of everything. The evf alone would suggest that this is, perhaps, the M10 catching up to the SL, but not quite. Leica's future looks like it's hitched to the L mount. We've had the usual "messucher means ..." what exactly? discussion, and as usual it hasn't really contributed much. Others, ignoring the fact that from one body in 1954 to 8 body options in 2016, say that if Leica introduces an EVF model, it will kill the M etc etc. The problem with this argument is that if the EVF model fails, then it will join other Leica cameras that didn't make it into a second round of production, and the ovf version will live on to multitudes cheering. But, there aren't any multitudes are there. The more likely scenario is that the EVF version will solve a number of very significant limitations inherent in the original ovf design - people will buy it, and that seems to be what terrifies the naysayers the most. A small, traditional manual focus, aperture priority system with 60 years of incredible lenses to play with, with a state of the art evf in one neat package. What's not to like? I think we can be sure that Leica will continue to make the ovf version, complete with crappy clip on re-badged evf from Olympus; for so long as people want to buy it... They will want to buy it, right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted January 4, 2017 Share #851 Posted January 4, 2017 The accessory Visoflex has existed since the early 1950's..........sure but it does't make for a compact camera in the 1950's nor now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdg1371 Posted January 4, 2017 Share #852 Posted January 4, 2017 It baffles me that something so simple produces such gnashing of teeth. I use the OVF/ rangefinder 95% of the time-- but I love the ability to add an EVF via the hot shoe when I want-- even the...less than spectacular one for the M240. Don't want an EVF? Think the EVF is antithetical to the M essence? No one is forcing you to use one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 4, 2017 Share #853 Posted January 4, 2017 I think we can be sure that Leica will continue to make the ovf version, complete with crappy clip on re-badged evf from Olympus; for so long as people want to buy it... They will want to buy it, right? By 'it', do you mean the camera or the EVF? The former is a fine RF camera. The latter is a low cost accessory option. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted January 4, 2017 Share #854 Posted January 4, 2017 Don't want an EVF? Think the EVF is antithetical to the M essence? No one is forcing you to use one.[/quoteOther than this being silly reasoning, it is not the point it is about the advantages of a electronic viewfinder as part of the body not a external addition Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 4, 2017 Share #855 Posted January 4, 2017 Excellent post, IkarusJohn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 4, 2017 Share #856 Posted January 4, 2017 If a person needs EVF, then he does not need a Leica M. . If Leica thought like that in 1954, they would never have developed a viewfinder-rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 4, 2017 Share #857 Posted January 4, 2017 Why? Surely he'd be delighted that his basic design still generates this much interest and enthusiasm after all these years. And just because he lived many years ago doesn't mean he was a traditionalist who didn't like innovation. Quite the opposite, I expect. Yes, indeed.It's not as though the chief innovator of 35mm photography would have been this terrified of a novel M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmx_2 Posted January 4, 2017 Share #858 Posted January 4, 2017 Aren't you all bored with this topic? 42 pages of speculation, argument, waffle, etc. Wait and see. One day "wait and see" will arrive. Just wait, just calm down .... please! Apprehension is worthless. Criticism of an unannounced product is futile. Criticism of an announced product is objective. Just wait. Then, at that moment, let fly! "Resistance is futile" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 4, 2017 Share #859 Posted January 4, 2017 Great thing about discussion on the internet is you get to know people you may not otherwise meet and you learn stuff. You also get to permanently ignore people with nothing to say, and particularly people whose only contribution is to say "you guys are boring" or " this is pointless" - rather proves the point, don't you think? Dickhead takes the time to join a conversation he thinks is pointless to say this is pointless! Who's the dickhead, I'm wondering. The other painful contribution is the competition over Leica history and fact - tedium personified. Generally, there's a conversation for which people take time to think and participate on. It's tragic when people miss the point, and it spoils the discussion for all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 4, 2017 Share #860 Posted January 4, 2017 Others, ignoring the fact that from one body in 1954 to 8 body options in 2016, say that if Leica introduces an EVF model, it will kill the M etc etc. Only if they drop the OVF completely, as stated many times before. The problem with this argument is that if the EVF model fails, then it will join other Leica cameras that didn't make it into a second round of production, and the ovf version will live on to multitudes cheering. ...The more likely scenario is that the EVF version will solve a number of very significant limitations inherent in the original ovf design - people will buy it, and that seems to be what terrifies the naysayers the most. Why on earth would anyone cheer about a possible failure or be terrified (!?) about a possible success ?? Surely the commercial success of such a camera would benefit all Leica users, and probably guarantee a longer life of a possible OVF only version. A small, traditional manual focus, aperture priority system with 60 years of incredible lenses to play with, with a state of the art evf in one neat package. What's not to like? What's not to like ? Well the EVF Why is it so difficult to understand that some users profoundly dislike an EVF, no matter how good it is, no matter what it's perceived advantages may be, no matter what camera it's on. I think we can be sure that Leica will continue to make the ovf version, complete with crappy clip on re-badged evf from Olympus; for so long as people want to buy it... They will want to buy it, right? Speaking for myself, If you mean a possible new and improved OVF version, then it would depend on the specs. If you mean the crappy EVF, then no, probably not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.