lct Posted January 4, 2017 Share #861 Posted January 4, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) [...] 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. [...] This is quite easy to understand indeed but it is not complicated to comprehend that such an EVF is an accessory the same way as accessory OVFs have been used by us and our parents since the thirties. The beauty of those things is we don't have to use them if we don't like that. A good way to save $500 btw . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 Hi lct, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ianman Posted January 4, 2017 Share #862 Posted January 4, 2017 here we go again... Of course nobody has to use an external EVF if they don't want to. But I am trying – sometimes successfully – to say that I believe that an internal EVF M which would replace the OVF M would not be a good move. It's as simple as that. So — and this really is the last time: - EVF only M and OVF only M -> Fine, and my personal favorite solution. - OVF with utterly out-of-this-world fantastic external EFV -> Fine - EVF only without OVF (with or without external EVF) -> Not fine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 4, 2017 Share #863 Posted January 4, 2017 And: -OVF with so-so but usable EVF -> OK (AKA M240) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted January 4, 2017 Share #864 Posted January 4, 2017 And: -OVF with excellent optional EVF -> Brilliant, without treading on anyone's toes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 4, 2017 Share #865 Posted January 4, 2017 here we go again... Of course nobody has to use an external EVF if they don't want to. But I am trying – sometimes successfully – to say that I believe that an internal EVF M which would replace the OVF M would not be a good move. It's as simple as that. So — and this really is the last time: - EVF only M and OVF only M -> Fine, and my personal favorite solution. - OVF with utterly out-of-this-world fantastic external EFV -> Fine - EVF only without OVF (with or without external EVF) -> Not fine Completely agree. Which is why sometimes being really clear rather is helpful. 1. My personal favourite solution is the same as yours. 2. Your second favourite solution is also acceptable (and I know there are many others who actually prefer that solution or do not want a second body) which is why I think an external EVF AND option one is the best solution of all. I don't think anyone has said they wanted an EVF only M... and to discontinue the OVF M. That is the part that puzzles me... some people seem to think this is what is being suggested... including you (sometimes!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 4, 2017 Share #866 Posted January 4, 2017 And: -OVF with excellent optional EVF -> Brilliant, without treading on anyone's toes. Isn't that option 2 in ianmans post? There is no 'And:' necessary... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 4, 2017 Share #867 Posted January 4, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) And: -OVF with excellent optional EVF -> Brilliant, without treading on anyone's toes. that was the second in my list ;-) edit... whoops, Bill replied before me... at least someone is reading my posts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 4, 2017 Share #868 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? I'm not sure there is the equivalence you imply, Paul, they are quite different kinds of cameras – even if many people seem to use both for the same kind of thing. Although I'm firmly in the optical RF 'camp', so to speak, I'm not sure that it matters if Leica offer an EVF add-on accessory for anyone you wants one or indeed an EVF only M mount body for the committed (though I can understand concerns that the latter development might put a question mark over the future of the traditional optical M camera). As for nobody requesting a rangefinder being put into an SL, I wouldn't be so certain. I gave serious consideration to this camera recently and part of my thinking was that I would use it with a 35 lens and do all the framing through a 35mm accessory viewfinder that I already own. After all, it is the non-TTL, optical frameline based view that is the key thing (at least for me) not quite so much the actual method of focus (though there is something inescapably intuitive about the RF method). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 4, 2017 Share #869 Posted January 4, 2017 I don't think anyone has said they wanted an EVF only M... and to discontinue the OVF M. That is the part that puzzles me... some people seem to think this is what is being suggested... including you (sometimes!). Well at some point it was suggested by someone... accompanied by the usual +1s. I didn't dream it up. I have nightmares sometimes but nothing quite as bad as that scenario I think the only point (minor really) where you and I differ is that IMHO, an EVF M (even accompanied by an OVF only M, so point 1 of my list) is so far removed from what a Leica M is, that is should have it's own family family within the Leica lineup. Just image how confusing the M line up could become. Would we have an EVF-Monochrome and an OVF-Monochrome ? Etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted January 4, 2017 Share #870 Posted January 4, 2017 Isn't that option 2 in ianmans post? There is no 'And:' necessary... You are quite right. Apologies, I misread ianman's post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 4, 2017 Share #871 Posted January 4, 2017 The M240 has an electronic Visoflex and the 'M10' has one as well. Bets are open for the M11 . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rawcs Posted January 4, 2017 Share #872 Posted January 4, 2017 here we go again... Of course nobody has to use an external EVF if they don't want to. But I am trying – sometimes successfully – to say that I believe that an internal EVF M which would replace the OVF M would not be a good move. It's as simple as that. So — and this really is the last time: - EVF only M and OVF only M -> Fine, and my personal favorite solution. - OVF with utterly out-of-this-world fantastic external EFV -> Fine - EVF only without OVF (with or without external EVF) -> Not fine Option one sounds like the X-Pro 2 (a full-frame version). I tried the X-Pro2 camera yesterday, along with the X-T2, as I need to purchase an interchangeable camera very soon. I thought that the X-Pro 2 would be my favourite after so many years of using Leica M cameras, but I actually preferred the X-T2 (EVF - only). I've come to the conclusion that I have been using Leica M cameras because I like a small, discreet camera capable of quality results. The film Leica gave me this, and I was willing to put up with a viewfinder that only allowed me to see (a spectacle wearer) the 35mm and 50mm frames comfortably. I grew to appreciate the rangefinder focussing for these focal lengths but realised the limitations of the focussing system with other lenses. With the digital Ms I find that the extra width and extra weight change the user experience enough for me to no-longer use the Leica system. Just my personal preference. I've been waiting since the M8 for a digital M that is the same or similar dimensions as the film M cameras. Now that it may be almost a reality, I'm leaning towards EVFs - primarily because they allow the user to see the result of any exposure compensation before the photograph is taken. I just wish Leica would show us the new camera so that I can get on with my photography! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted January 4, 2017 Share #873 Posted January 4, 2017 And: -OVF with so-so but usable EVF -> OK (AKA M240) As we are already given M240 with poor EVF and no future proofing to upgrade to faster refresh rate one we have no choice but to be happy with it (i am). It would not be OK to launch new M in 2017 with rubbish EVF, excuses that it was designed back in 2015 and that Leica is a small company with expertise in opto-mechanics are plain lame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 4, 2017 Share #874 Posted January 4, 2017 [...] It would not be OK to launch new M in 2017 with rubbish EVF, excuses that it was designed back in 2015 and that Leica is a small company with expertise in opto-mechanics are plain lame. Indeed. Would a medium profile EVF like the Visoflex 020 be chosen by Leica to save SL sales or for other reasons? Would deserve a whole thread imho. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted January 4, 2017 Share #875 Posted January 4, 2017 Indeed. Would a medium profile EVF like the Visoflex 020 be chosen by Leica to save SL sales or for other reasons? Would deserve a whole thread imho. As much as I long for a better EVF I'd have to ask myself if I'd spend a small fortune to use an 020 on the next M. Unfortunately I can't see the answer being anything other than no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent M10 Posted January 4, 2017 Share #876 Posted January 4, 2017 Even if you hate it, there is simply no denying that EVF can be a tremendously powerful educational tool. The effect of multiple adjustments can be seen, step by step, in the moment. For a kinesthetic learner like myself, the relatively primitive X-T1's EVF managed to teach, or at least solidify, more about how to effectively manipulate exposure after a month then had occurred in all the years preceding it. Those experiences translated into an easy time of it once I gambled on a move to an M. For those that bemoan the potential of instant gratification to blunt the imagination, I respectfully suggest that attitude itself lacks imagination. EVF affords the ability to conceive a set of approaches, experiment and get feedback in real time. Quite rapidly one expands one's personal repertoire of techniques and responses to various sets of conditions that might never have been realized otherwise, given once failure is recognized in the processing phase, most times, there is no going back to reshoot. Once the lessons taught in the field are absorbed, they pay dividends regardless of the viewfinder technology. Yes, some aspects of the shooting experience are dulled. Certainly, even the most modern of EVFs exhibits, occasionally infuriating, limitations or flaws. And shooting with M glass, given its lack of auto aperture, is likely to more frequently involve coping with these flaws. But every camera embraces a set of compromises to best serve its particular mission. A QM, could provide the lightest, most compact platform for M mount yet seen. It could open up the joys of simple, MF photography to a new generation of photographers interested in entering the M fold. It affords us all the opportunity to routinely utilize focal lengths we might previously have avoided. If the difficulties of an EVF based RF design are simply still too challenging to overcome, the production of a QM seems to my mind to offer the best alternative. I'd say there are two sides to this. Sure, the "EVF affords the ability to conceive a set of approaches, experiment and get feedback in real time," but it is very often also paralyzing. It can provide so much instantaneous information that you become more mindful of the analytics involved in taking the photograph than you are in the image itself. I have a couple of cameras with EVFs, but I also have the MD. The MD's lack of complicated sophistication requires previsualization and sometimes some downright hard thinking, hardly an attitude that lacks imagination. With the choice of an EVF and an MD, I pick up the MD every time I want to create expression. I pick up my EVF cameras when I need to document something. As they say, limitation is the mother of creativity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 4, 2017 Share #877 Posted January 4, 2017 As we are already given M240 with poor EVF and no future proofing to upgrade to faster refresh rate one we have no choice but to be happy with it (i am). It would not be OK to launch new M in 2017 with rubbish EVF, excuses that it was designed back in 2015 and that Leica is a small company with expertise in opto-mechanics are plain lame. Indeed. Would a medium profile EVF like the Visoflex 020 be chosen by Leica to save SL sales or for other reasons? Would deserve a whole thread imho. Hmm - well, assuming they do use the Visoflex 020 (Leica rumours seem to think so). Is it rubbish? I don't think so - I've been shooting one on the Lieca T and it seems bright, clear, large and with good dynamic range (much better than many more modern EVF that I've seen). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted January 4, 2017 Share #878 Posted January 4, 2017 I guess we'd need to see the implementation of the Visoflex 020 on the new M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 4, 2017 Share #879 Posted January 4, 2017 here we go again... Of course nobody has to use an external EVF if they don't want to. But I am trying – sometimes successfully – to say that I believe that an internal EVF M which would replace the OVF M would not be a good move. It's as simple as that. So — and this really is the last time: - EVF only M and OVF only M -> Fine, and my personal favorite solution. - OVF with utterly out-of-this-world fantastic external EFV -> Fine - EVF only without OVF (with or without external EVF) -> Not fine Nicely succinct I'd say . . . I'd certainly like to see a camera in an M shaped body (and with similar controls and layout) with an EVF instead of a rangefinder - fantastic idea BUT It would be completely crazy not to give it an L mount, so that it had the possibility of using the SL and TL lenses as well as the M lenses - using the L mount would have no disadvantages and a host of advantages. . . . and if so, I'd contend that such a camera wouldn't sensibly be part of the M system - and ought to have a different name! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 4, 2017 Share #880 Posted January 4, 2017 I guess we'd need to see the implementation of the Visoflex 020 on the new M I quite agree - proof of the pudding etc. If it's true, then we'll just have to wait and see. I was just against the idea of writing it off before it's even been tried. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.