Leica M 10

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Absolutely.

 

My trouble is, I like them both. 

 

That's one of the biggest attractions of the M240,  and why I'm feeling a little disappointed about the M10: it has both and I was hoping I could have the best of both in one camera, but that opportunity has gone, for now at least.

Maybe - I have never used a Fuji hybrid, but I suspect a hybrid would lose some of the simplicity/clarity of the simple OVF/RF.

[Distagon]

I always thought the way I use my M is quite normal, but judging by the amount of people commenting on the EVF, maybe it isn't?  Maybe most people do not shoot with 28mm, 35mm, or 50mm lenses the vast majority of the time?

 

It's a bit of a circular argument, isn't it?

The OVF-rangefinder shines for a specific focal range, 28-50 mm, so long as you focus at least 0.7 m away.

Therefore, M photographers principally use the focal range 28-50 mm.

Therefore, we conclude that the EVF is not useful.

Yes, the way you are using the M is quite normal and it is heavily influenced by the limitations of the OVF-rangefinder.

What some have suggested is that it would be very helpful and liberating to have an OVF, an EVF, and a rangefinder integrated in a novel way so as to play to the strengths of all three and still remain true to the manual simplicity of M.

It's all a moot point, because the flagship M has been released and Leica have not implemented their patented hybrid concept.

Cheers.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Bill Livingston]

Maybe most people do not shoot with 28mm, 35mm, or 50mm lenses the vast majority of the time?

You know they do, but that's not the point!

 

There are several reasons why an EVF would make sense on an M. Not least because it would attract new customers to Leica from a generation of users who have grown up with EVF and find optical rangefinders a difficult learning curve, further complicated by focus shift, calibration issues and the distinct possibility that even a properly calibrated camera and set of lenses can go out of calibration over a period of time.

 

But even if that wasn't an issue, although the vast majority of Leica users DO in fact use 28-50 the majority of the time, an awful lot of those users also use them wide open and relatively close to their subjects, making accurate focussing essential... How many times do we seen a subjects ears in focus and their eyes soft??

 

Very often indeed... so focus is something even confirmed optical RF users find difficult... so much so that they are very often not even aware of it. Add this to the fact that many Leica owners are in the 40-60 age group, so eyesight deterioration further compounds the issue and we can see why an easy, fast, focussing method that, for example, the SL has because manual focussing of M lenses works exceptionally well on a high quality EVF and makes life a lot faster and easier and would result in far more useable photographs that don't fail due to small focussing errors (and with the performance of the very best Leica M lenses, especially on digital which is far less forgiving than film, focussing errors are far easier to see, either on the larger HiRes screens people use today, or on larger prints...

 

I think there are a lot of people who simply pay lip service to the 'old school' RF because it is fashionably unfashionable, when in reality they would be better off looking at their photographs and asking themselves whether their results could be improved by using a camera that actually allows them to produce consistently well focussed results.

 

The normal response is, well, maybe an M is not for you... it's isn't designed to be a multipurpose camera and perhaps an SL is the right option.

 

That may well be true... but it doesn't actually have to be any more. The limitations imposed on the M by virtue of its design were absolutely not an issue in the fifties, sixties and seventies when used as a reportage camera... but even then, many photographers chose to use Nikon (as did I at the time), so Leica users learned to use their cameras within their limitations and that was that.

 

Yes, some people bought a Visoflex, but I doubt Leica sold very many over all as they were clumsy and completely negated the benefit of the Leica M... why would anyone use an M3 or and M4 day to day in order to get an SLR view when there was the Nikon F available? If size wasn't an issue, the Nikon was always a better choice and if size was an issue, nothing compared to a couple of M4's... quiet, fabulous lenses and discreet.

 

But that was then.

 

Today we don't actually need to have those same limitations... and why people insist on continuing to impose those limitations is beyond me.

 

A Leica M type camera with an SL quality (or above) EVF would be faster and easier and far more useable than a clip on EVF and would allow M users to see what they are actually getting, both in focus and in composition... and it would be a far more flexible camera...

 

For those who want the 'outside the picture area' view offered by the current OVF when using a 35 or a 50, I completely understand, that's why I like my OVF too... but there is a massive 'outside the picture area' when I mount my 90mm, the actual area within the viewfinder that the lens 'sees' is pretty small and the rangefinder patch is proportionally much larger than it is on, say a 28mm... so both composition and focussing are much harder... and with longer focal lengths at narrow depth of field, focussing is very critical... and remember a 90 is often used as a portrait lens, making the subjects eyes the natural point of interest to a viewer of that photograph, so focus is absolutely critical.

 

I think there are a lot of armchair Leica enthusiasts making a lot of noise and ignoring potential users who actually want to get the best results from their cameras, not protect some legacy which was always a weakness, not a strength. No matter how much they try to convince both themselves and us that it was.

 

I would welcome an EVF M at some point in the future to add to my existing M system. The M10 seems to be a step in the right direction, but not enough to add to my M-P system and not enough to replace it...

Edited January 20, 2017 by Bill Livingston

[Distagon]

It's a waste of effort declaring one or the other is "best". Just use the one that has the characteristics you want.

Yes, I absolutely agree.

That is why a hybrid, offering the strengths of both, would have been such a powerful tool.

Perhaps, because no true hybrid OVF-EVF-rangefinder currently exists, people have difficulty visualising what it might mean in use.

So we get caught it false-binary discussions about OVF-rangefinders versus EVFs, because those are the products that people can actually buy and use now.

Anyway, as I wrote, it is now a moot point.

[Peter H]

Maybe - I have never used a Fuji hybrid, but I suspect a hybrid would lose some of the simplicity/clarity of the simple OVF/RF.

It probably depends on how well it's implemented.

 

I find the X Pro 2's viewfinder exceptionally good and I very much doubt that it could be simpler to operate since the thing on the front of the camera that's a replica of the frame selector we're familiar with needs just a flick to cycle through the three modes: OVF, EVF, and combined.

 

I suppose having a choice at all can be seen as a reduction in simplicity, but I don't take that very seriously since shutter speeds and apertures and focal lengths and all the rest all require choices to be made at some stage of the operation, and we're reluctant to surrender the choices because of the control they give us. Simplicity can be a complicated thing...

 

A "hybrid" viewfinder combining the best of both systems has to be the ultimate goal, in my opinion.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Peter H

[Stealth3kpl]

 

I always thought the way I use my M is quite normal, but judging by the amount of people commenting on the EVF, maybe it isn't?  Maybe most people do not shoot with 28mm, 35mm, or 50mm lenses the vast majority of the time?

 

 

 

 

I think your way of working is quite normal. I'm concerned that all this banging on about an EVF will give Leica the wrong idea and we'll end up with a camera the majority can't use or don't want. Most of us are here for the rangefinder.

Pete

Edited January 20, 2017 by Stealth3kpl

[Distagon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A Leica M. Is first and foremost an optical rangefinder camera , designed and matured for that purpose. Anything else will not be an M

EVF. Finder will never be a replacement for an optical rangefinder. This camera system is made for this reason only.

If You want .Af. Evf. Or a no brain point it and shoot camera then there are lot of options out there. Why people compare the M to Sony or Fuji ? I just don't get it

The question was: "I'm curious to know how many M users actually prefer using a EVF over the OVF on a regular basis."

There is no point in citing the experience of people on other camera systems when the question was about using an EVF on the M system.

My point was simply that the EVF2 of 2012 could not give most M-240 photographers a favourable experience of preferring an EVF over an OVF.

I have no idea where you are getting your references to Sony or Fuji.

[Peter H]

The question was: "I'm curious to know how many M users actually prefer using a EVF over the OVF on a regular basis."

There is no point in citing the experience of people on other camera systems when the question was about using an EVF on the M system.

My point was simply that the EVF2 of 2012 could not give most M-240 photographers a favourable experience of preferring an EVF over an OVF.

I have no idea where you are getting your references to Sony or Fuji.

This is an open discussion, not a court of law, so it's perfectly reasonable to make these sort of references.

[Distagon]

I think your way of working is quite normal. I'm concerned that all this banging on about an EVF will give Leica the wrong idea and we'll end up with a camera the majority can't use or don't want. Most of us are here for the rangefinder.

A hybrid would still be a rangefinder.

[Bill Livingston]

A "hybrid" combining the best of both has to be the ultimate goal, in my opinion.

I would agree. For me. I would only need one body then!

 

The reason I have been banging on about an EVF version of an M is that I would have thought it would be easier and faster to market and would have most of the advantages that new users would want... and could be a second body for those of us who have grown up with the M around as it is.

 

A hybrid is probably a better answer as a transitional camera. And probably the only option that could satisfy traditionalists.

 

Purists on the other hand, would probably want an M10 and not be too bothered if there was an EVF M as an option.

 

Fundamentalists however, would hate the idea of an EVF M... just is case it 'depurifies' the M concept and tempts people away from the one true faith...

[Distagon]

This is an open discussion, not a court of law, so it's perfectly reasonable to make these sort of references.

Sure.

My comment had been quoted, and the response implied that I was comparing the M to other brands that I had not mentioned.  

It also perfectly reasonable for me to point that out.

Cheers.

[Peter H]

Sure.

My comment had been quoted, and the response implied that I was comparing the M to other brands that I had not mentioned.

It also perfectly reasonable for me to point that out.

Cheers.

Indeed.

[stephen.w]

I like using the fuji hybrid finders, but would still prefer a clip-on EVF for an M if the camera was compatible with future, higher-spec'ed EVFs. It seems to be the only area of camera technology which is still undergoing rapid change.

[wattsy]

Purists on the other hand, would probably want an M10 and not be too bothered if there was an EVF M as an option.

 

Fundamentalists however, would hate the idea of an EVF M... just is case it 'depurifies' the M concept and tempts people away from the one true faith...

 

 

 (Please count me amongst the purists).

[Bill Livingston]

 

Of course!

Edited January 20, 2017 by Bill Livingston

[pgk]

Fundamentalists however, would hate the idea of an EVF M... just is case it 'depurifies' the M concept and tempts people away from the one true faith...

 

But the Real Fundamentalists hate the idea of a state-of-the-art EVF on an M rangefinder because it wastes Leica's resources which they believe would be much better utilised on producing an M-size), full frame EVF only camera which can take TL lenses natively and M lenses via an adapter    . 

[Mr.Q]

OK, it seems a lot of people are banking on technology that does not exist --- a mechanical hybrid viewfinder. I'm still puzzled as to why some keep referring to the "limitations" of a rangefinder while disregarding it's "strengths."

 

Would I like a hybrid viewfinder? Sure, as long as it does not hamper the size and weight of the camera, while maintaining the visibility of the current OVF. In other words, would I give up the M10's weight/size, it's 0.73 magnification and excellent eye relief for a half-hearted attempt at a hybrid EVF? Hell no. I've shot with a Fuji X-Pro2 before and the viewfinder was tiny with horrible eye relief. Both the OVF and EVF were subpar. A product of compromise. You can never have the best of both world's.

 

I shoot 95% of my photos using a 28-90mm lens. I would not sacrifice the "strengths" of a rangefinder for the remaining 5% that I'd maybe prefer a digital representation of my subject. In fact, I'd probably be on a tripod or be shooting from the hip, so I'd prefer a swivel LCD over an EVF for those instances.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Mr.Q

[Paul J]

Currently i'm swinging from "I'm selling all my M lenses" to "I'm buying an M10 now"

[jonoslack]

A hybrid is probably a better answer as a transitional camera. And probably the only option that could satisfy traditionalists.

 

Purists on the other hand, would probably want an M10 and not be too bothered if there was an EVF M as an option.

 

Fundamentalists however, would hate the idea of an EVF M... just is case it 'depurifies' the M concept and tempts people away from the one true faith... 

 

 

As far as I'm aware there isn't a way of making a hybrid of which the optical part is a proper mechanical rangefinder . . 

. . . and if it isn't, then it's not going to satisfy the traditionalists (me included). 

 

Look - I LIKE EVF cameras - have have 2 (an Olympus OMD E-M1ii and a Leica SL) - I like using one with Manual focus lenses. I don't want something like the Fuji hybrid, because it is NOT a rangefinder - anyone can argue until they're blue in the face that it's just as good, but it isn't the same. 

 

I'm right up for Leica making a camera with a shape like an M which has a hybrid viewfinder - or indeed an EVF, but I won't buy one (because I don't want one - I'll use the SL). I simply don't understand why people want to take away the rangefinder from those of us who truly like shooting with one - fortunately I trust Leica not to do this. . .  

 

I guess in your terms I'm a fundamentalist - I'd love to see your camera . . . but it won't be an M, so why should it be called one? Added to which they'd be completely bonkers to give it an M mount when it could have an L mount (and double as an AF camera). 

Edited January 20, 2017 by jonoslack

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[keithlaban.co.uk]

As far as I'm aware there isn't a way of making a hybrid of which the optical part is a proper mechanical rangefinder . . 

. . . and if it isn't, then it's not going to satisfy the traditionalists (me included). 

 

Look - I LIKE EVF cameras - have have 2 (an Olympus OMD E-M1ii and a Leica SL) - I like using one with Manual focus lenses. I don't want something like the Fuji hybrid, because it is NOT a rangefinder - anyone can argue until they're blue in the face that it's just as good, but it isn't the same. 

 

I'm right up for Leica making a camera with a shape like an M which has a hybrid viewfinder - or indeed an EVF, but I won't buy one (because I don't want one - I'll use the SL). I simply don't understand why people want to take away the rangefinder from those of us who truly like shooting with one - fortunately I trust Leica not to do this. . .  

 

I guess in your terms I'm a fundamentalist - I'd love to see your camera . . . but it won't be an M, so why should it be called one? Added to which they'd be completely bonkers to give it an M mount when it could have an L mount (and double as an AF camera). 

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Essentially keep the M as the rangefinder line, but please, add a compact interchangeable lens, EVF based camera - I'm not interested in a hybrid - that'll be compatible with and get the most out M lenses. I really don't care what it's called, I'll just call it mine. 

 

Pretty please.